I Wish The Canon Would Expand Just A Teeny Bit

[CASteinman]

That KFD teaches infinite regression of the Gods.

I did not say so. You seemed to suggest it.

[mathonihah]

You go by what you claim to be true -- not by what is official, nor what the current prophets and apostles claim is true.

I don't think they would disagree with me on it though.

OK... so you are your own sort of authority. But this does not really support a CFR.

See above.

[mathonihah]

Actually that supposedly false doctrine was not "read into" the KFD. It comes from teachings by the Prophet Joseph Smith in a different sermon called "The Meeting in the Grove" where he teaches it directly. Brigham Young did not really teach it all that much -- he focused on one particular iteration. Both Joseph and WW Phelps indicate the doctrine was learned in the translation of the Book of Abraham.

I have read the sermon in the grove, and I don't recall it teaching the infinite regression of the Gods. It teaches more or less the same doctrines as in the KFD. And I don't recall reading anything by WW Phelps.

[mathonihah]

You have told me you don't have a reference and that there might not be one or probably there is not one (or words to that effect) and I accept that.

That was in answer to a different question than the historical justification for removing the LoF from the D&C.

[CASteinman]

I have read the sermon in the grove, and I don't recall it teaching the infinite regression of the Gods. It teaches more or less the same doctrines as in the KFD. And I don't recall reading anything by WW Phelps.

Here is what Joseph Smith said in the Sermon in the Grove:

"

If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that

He

had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.

I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before? He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before. He did as He was sent, to lay down His life and take it up again; and then was committed unto Him the keys."

[CASteinman]

That was in answer to a different question than the historical justification for removing the LoF from the D&C.

You are, as you have made clear, not equipped to answer the questions associated with CFR on this either.

[mathonihah]

I did not say so. You seemed to suggest it.

I did not. I thought that you did. Are you playing word games with me or something?

[CASteinman]

I did not. I thought that you did. Are you playing word games with me or something?

No. You are not equipped for this conversation. I am going to ignore your posts until you find a method to read and reply effectively with post #'s and so on.

[mathonihah]

Here is what Joseph Smith said in the Sermon in the Grove:

"

If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that

He

had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.

I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before? He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before. He did as He was sent, to lay down His life and take it up again; and then was committed unto Him the keys."

This still does not teach the infinite regression of the Gods, although it is easy to read that into it. It just doesn't. And these are all very good reasons why they are not suitable for canonisation, but a separate and independent revelation is required.

[CASteinman]

This still does not teach the infinite regression of the Gods, although it is easy to read that into it. It just doesn't. And these are all very good reasons why they are not suitable for canonisation, but a separate and independent revelation is required.

You are not equipped for this conversation. You should leave it until you are.

[mathonihah]

You are, as you have made clear, not equipped to answer the questions associated with CFR on this either.

Not on all issues.

[mathonihah]

No. You are not equipped for this conversation. I am going to ignore your posts until you find a method to read and reply effectively with post #'s and so on.

I think it enables me to get by without too much difficulty.

[CASteinman]

I think it enables me to get by without too much difficulty.

No, it has caused considerable difficulty.

[mathonihah]

You are not equipped for this conversation. You should leave it until you are.

I think that I am coping very well thank you.

[CASteinman]

I think that I am coping very well thank you.

You are failing to give reference when challenged.

When I accept your reasoning for that failure you actually reject my acceptance and give an explanation that does not fit with the record of the posts.

You repeatedly say "See prior post" but do not give the post number

When asked to give the post number you say you are not willing because it is too hard on a hand held device.

You are not coping well. Come back when you can converse reasonably.

[mathonihah]

You are failing to give reference when challenged.

When I accept your reasoning for that failure you actually reject my acceptance and give an explanation that does not fit with the record of the posts.

You repeatedly say "See prior post" but do not give the post number

When asked to give the post number you say you are not willing because it is too hard on a hand held device.

You are not coping well. Come back when you can converse reasonably.

LOL! Good excuse to escape. The bottom line is that the KFD doesn't teach the infinite regression of the Gods, and neither does the sermon in the grove, although there are many who insist on reading that into it; and that alone is good enough reason for not canonising either sermon in the language expressed, but obtaining the pure doctrine in the language expressed by the Lord.

[CASteinman]

LOL! Good excuse to escape.

That is insulting.

Are you going to stop using the fact that you are replying on a hand held device as a reason to provide incomplete answers? In particular, are you going to stop using that as a reason to not describe exactly what prior post you claim to be referencing?

And are you going to start providing references when asked or retract your claims?

I do not mind that you are unable. I do not mind waiting until later. But please do not be rude.

Edited March 25, 2013 by CASteinman

[mathonihah]

Are you going to stop using the fact that you are replying on a hand held device as a reason to provide incomplete answers? In particular, are you going to stop using that as a reason to not describe exactly what prior post you claim to be referencing?

I think that that was reasonably obvious; and in either case, the bottom line is most important, as in my previous post!

Edited March 25, 2013 by mathonihah

[CASteinman]

I think that that was reasonably obvious; and in either case, the bottom line is most important, as in my previous post!

I do not know what is obvious any more in talking with you. I would like an answer to the questions I put to you. Are you going to stop using your handheld device as an excuse?

This is a simple question and it requires a simple answer.

The second question is.. are you going to start providing references when asked or not?

Its a yes or no answer.

Edited March 25, 2013 by CASteinman

[Stone holm]

I tried to envision something -- the Church in the Year 3000.

(I think if Christ has not come by then and replaced the Church -- then something is wrong with my whole system of understanding of things -- but lets ignore that for now).

Would the Church in the year 3000 have men marrying men in the Temple to live as two Husbands?

I don't think so. I think if that should happen the Church would collapse and die. This has nothing specific to do with it being the True Church -- but rather the need for any religious body to have standards. Otherwise they lose purpose and focus. As we see happening among the Anglicans.

I believe if the second coming has not occurred by the year 3000, that our concept of "family" will be substantially different than it is now. Traditional nuclear family child rearing is currently falling apart along with the traditional family. That has, in my humble undocumented opinion, absolutely nothing to do with pornography, gay marriage, abortion, or the failure to recite prayers in school. What it has to do with is the destruction of the middle-class and the destruction of the family as a viable economic unit, in other words we no longer have as many family businesses or farms, men and women now are very unlikely to work together at a business or on a farm, and the kids are rarely if ever involved in the family business or farm. So unless something is done to reverse this economic trend, then society will continue to experiment until it comes up with a better model for creating stable relations between adults and rearing children. If we are really serious about saving the traditional family, then we need to get serious about fixing the economic and social barriers we now have to making the family a viable economic unit, rather than wasting time arguing about the definition of "marriage". I suspect that what we are going to eventually see evolve otherwise is the formation of social groups which in essence raise the children which may or may not involve married couples -- heck we are kind of already in transition to that as fewer and fewer children are being raised in the presence of both biological parents -- and our culture makes it incredibly difficult for step-parents to actually function as parents. So we have a lot of single women raising children with the assistance of grandparents, siblings, and friends.

[mathonihah]

I do not know what is obvious any more in talking with you. I would like an answer to the questions I put to you. Are you going to stop using your handheld device as an excuse?

This is a simple question and it requires a simple answer.

The second question is.. are you going to start providing references when asked or not?

Its a yes or no answer.

You have backed yourself into a corner again, and starting to bring excuses. I repeat: “The bottom line is that the KFD doesn't teach the infinite regression of the Gods, and neither does the sermon in the grove, although there are many who insist on reading that into it; and that alone is good enough reason for not canonising either sermon in the language expressed, but obtaining the pure doctrine in the language expressed by the Lord.” Tell me why you need a CFR for that.

Edited March 25, 2013 by mathonihah

[CASteinman]

I believe if the second coming has not occurred by the year 3000, that our concept of "family" will be substantially different than it is now. Traditional nuclear family child rearing is currently falling apart along with the traditional family. That has, in my humble undocumented opinion, absolutely nothing to do with pornography, gay marriage, abortion, or the failure to recite prayers in school. What it has to do with is the destruction of the middle-class and the destruction of the family as a viable economic unit, in other words we no longer have as many family businesses or farms, men and women now are very unlikely to work together at a business or on a farm, and the kids are rarely if ever involved in the family business or farm. So unless something is done to reverse this economic trend, then society will continue to experiment until it comes up with a better model for creating stable relations between adults and rearing children. If we are really serious about saving the traditional family, then we need to get serious about fixing the economic and social barriers we now have to making the family a viable economic unit, rather than wasting time arguing about the definition of "marriage". I suspect that what we are going to eventually see evolve otherwise is the formation of social groups which in essence raise the children which may or may not involve married couples -- heck we are kind of already in transition to that as fewer and fewer children are being raised in the presence of both biological parents -- and our culture makes it incredibly difficult for step-parents to actually function as parents. So we have a lot of single women raising children with the assistance of grandparents, siblings, and friends.

How do you figure that at the Family is not a stable economic unit? As I understand it, individuals in standard families do better, economically, than individuals outside of those standard families, all other factors being equal.

It seems to me you have rested your whole approach on an assumption that may not be valid: That in modern society the Family is not a Stable Economic Unit.

[Stone holm]

How do you figure that at the Family is not a stable economic unit? As I understand it, individuals in standard families do better, economically, than individuals outside of those standard families, all other factors being equal.

It seems to me you have rested your whole approach on an assumption that may not be valid: That in modern society the Family is not a Stable Economic Unit.

Oh I do not question that people in stable marriages have an economic advantage. There are a lot of advantages in that. But compared to any time prior in our history (with the exception of African-Americans during the existence of slavery), families are not as economically viable as a cohesive unit as they used to be. This of course is more true in rural areas than urban areas, but rural areas were the bastion of stable marriages. The upper classes were always a little iffy on the stability of their marriages. The middle-class and to a lesser extent the poor were where stability was the strongest. The middle-class could until relatively recently afford to have one partner not working outside the home and it tended to be the exception rather than the rule that both of the adults worked outside the home. For the poor, it was never really a viable option for both adults not to work outside the home if they could in fact find work outside the home for both. In rural areas the middle-class was comprised primarily of small family owned business owners (ma and pa operations) where it was common for both spouses to work in the business at least part time and the kids worked in the business at least part time as soon as they were old enough. Farms operated in the same manner. It was often critical to the business that the whole family be engaged in the business or farm, and where possible the business or farm was passed on to the next generation. Now, however, such businesses are becoming fewer and fewer, most people are employees or officers in businesses owned by corporations of which they are not the principal owners. Company policies normally frown on nepotism, and there is no connection from one generation to the other either while the parent is working at the business or as far as an inheritance is concerned. The connection between the family and the economy is basically the parents paycheck and hopefully the group health insurance policy if they have one -- and the ability to pool the income. The family remains the primary consumption unit, but it is no longer the production unit. This has a tremendous impact on the cohesiveness of the family -- when it breaks down, as it has, it weakens the family tremendously. People think of the father's job, or the mother's job, -- not the family's business or the family's farm. Family farms in America are now predominantly owned by the Amish -- in most areas family farms either have disappeared or are on their way in that direction. (I would note there are some hopeful signs here as some young couples are getting into starting small truck farms -- they have a major uphill struggle if this trend is to continue because they have to find niches that aren't dominated by the industrial sized farms and they have to battle to preserve those niches which is not easy because they face major big time opponents.) So no I don't think that I am wrong about the viability of the family unit. The law has had to deal with the concept of the worthless child in wrongful death actions for sometime -- due to the fact that children are actually a financial liability in todays economy -- unless you happen to be Amish.

[rongo]

Oh I do not question that people in stable marriages have an economic advantage. There are a lot of advantages in that. But compared to any time prior in our history . . . families are not as economically viable as a cohesive unit as they used to be.

[Previously said] I believe if the second coming has not occurred by the year 3000, that our concept of "family" will be substantially different than it is now. Traditional nuclear family child rearing is currently falling apart along with the traditional family. That . . . has to do with . . . the destruction of the middle-class and the destruction of the family as a viable economic unit

I'm not sure what "more stable" form you think this will eventually evolve to. People just living together? Common law relationships?

Where will this end up "by the year 3000" once evolutionary forces have picked a better alternative to marriage?

[CASteinman]

Oh I do not question that people in stable marriages have an economic advantage. There are a lot of advantages in that. But compared to any time prior in our history (with the exception of African-Americans during the existence of slavery), families are not as economically viable as a cohesive unit as they used to be.

Well, first of all, I don't really know that I believe this, but second of all, it does not matter if they are as economically viable as they used to be -- it only has to be that the difference between stable husband-wife-children families and other systems remain relatively the same for families to be "viable" as an approach.

This concept you have about it being so bad, I am not doing "CFR" but I am curious -- Do you have any objective economic and scientifically derived data to support this or is it rather someone's theory with - possibly some support if we cherry pick but nothing actually amounting to real evidence?

I should also mention, there is a certain way I hope you can support this view because it would play well nicely with some ideas I have. However, I don't see it.

Edited March 25, 2013 by CASteinman