Prophets Saw Our Day

[ERMD]

This hope of the eventual realization on the part of the Lord's prophet on earth that same sex marriage/sealing is actually and has always been the will of God is akin to me telling my wife, "Well, you haven't divorced me yet, but you just may do it one day, and for all I know, you've wanted to do it all along. Since that is the case, I'm going to begin to consider my options of another wife in anticipation of the day that shoe will drop. You know I love you, but I just have to keep my options open."

[rockpond]

Care to attempt to insert SSA into the Proclamation on the Family? Gender and heterosexual marrieds are the only paradigm on sexuality that is admitted in that document.

Why would I need to? The Proclamation isn't revelation and it doesn't exclude the possibility of future revelation on the subject.

Admitting that to your church leaders will place you one short step from discipline. Teach it, and that one short step will be taken, practice it in this mortal life and you will have a long step getting back....

I have admitted it to my church leaders, it didn't seem to put me "one short step from discipline" as I was left in my YM calling and later put in a ward leadership position. At church, I only teach currently accepted doctrine though I do emphasize the need to seek out the spirit and personal revelation.

[ERMD]

Why would I need to? The Proclamation isn't revelation and it doesn't exclude the possibility of future revelation on the subject.

I have admitted it to my church leaders, it didn't seem to put me "one short step from discipline" as I was left in my YM calling and later put in a ward leadership position. At church, I only teach currently accepted doctrine though I do emphasize the need to seek out the spirit and personal revelation.

The Proclamation isn't revelation, based on what information?

[rockpond]

That assumes that Heavenly Father can simply decree that people of the same sex can have spirit children. If you believe in a Heavenly Father that can do that, then there wouldn't be a problem. On the other hand, if you believe that even Heavenly Father has to follow a recipe not only for the creation of exalted beings, but for creating spirit children then its a problem. The Heavenly Father that I believe in, has to follow certain rules not of His making that apply. Hence the need for Heavenly Fathers and Heavenly Mothers, hence all the hoopla in the Declaration on Family about gender being eternal. Gender stereotyping is merely culture, but gender when it comes to creating children, whether mortal children or spirit children is important doctrine. So no, God will not do just anything.

We have no idea how spirit children are created. For me, the suggestion that spirit children can only be created through a male-female pairing reflects our limited mortal understanding. It certainly is not something that has been revealed or restored at this time.

[rockpond]

The Proclamation isn't revelation, based on what information?

It isn't called a revelation, it's called a proclamation. The text itself makes no indication of having been revealed of God. And, President Packer corrected himself when he once referred to it as a revelation in General Conference (see Oct 2010 conference address by Pres. Packer... spoken version compared to published version).

[rockpond]

This hope of the eventual realization on the part of the Lord's prophet on earth that same sex marriage/sealing is actually and has always been the will of God is akin to me telling my wife, "Well, you haven't divorced me yet, but you just may do it one day, and for all I know, you've wanted to do it all along. Since that is the case, I'm going to begin to consider my options of another wife in anticipation of the day that shoe will drop. You know I love you, but I just have to keep my options open."

We are in the process of a restoration. I believe that's different.

It seems more akin to a pre-1978 church member couple who is of African descent hoping that someday they'll be allowed to be sealed in the temple.

[rongo]

And, President Packer corrected himself when he once referred to it as a revelation in General Conference (see Oct 2010 conference address by Pres. Packer... spoken version compared to published version).

And oh, how your blood ran cold until the text was changed in the written version . . . I don't attribute the change in the text to President Packer "correcting himself," but rather to Poelman-esque heavy-handed anxiety over how things play. I think the time will come when it will be officially canonized because of members who go too far in representing it as "just an opinion" or "just a suggestion."

[rockpond]

Who knows how silly your not immoral comparisons really are? This isn't even apples and oranges, it's more like comparing rocks and vegetables. If you want to toss out all references to sexual immorality even existing, then I suppose your comparisons are valid as pointing to dominant traits versus less common or even very rare traits. Are there going to be albinos in the hereafter? People who are genetically predisposed to obesity? Retaining water? Bad knees? The list is almost endless. Silly. "Everything being restored to its proper and perfect frame" can only mean perfection in the place of imperfection. If left handedness is a defect, which I think it is just like being ONE-handed is a defect (as opposed to being perfectly ambidextrous), then that will no longer exist with immortals. If sex with water mammals is natural, I am sure that a sapient "Flipper" can exist as an eternal couple with the human boy too. Do you really want to argue it this way? Less than one percent of men between the ages of 15 and 21 admit that they are attracted ONLY to males, well under one percent in fact. It isn't supposed to be. In the next life it, along with every other aberrant twist of mortality will be healed. That is the position of the Church's policy on abstinence, for SSA and for drug/alcohol addicts, sex addicts who are sorely tempted to impropriety of all kinds, etc....

It wasn't my silly comparison. You are the one basing your "aberration" argument on the fact that homosexuality is a minority occurrence and lacks parity to heterosexuality. If that's your basis for concluding that it will be removed in the resurrection, I reject such a conclusion as faulty logic.

I'm not looking for philosophies of men on this. All I'm suggesting is that maybe as a church we are lacking the epistemic humility on the matter to receive additional revelation. And my interactions with you and ERMD confirm that... you two believe we already know even though you can't point to a revelation that clarifies the position of homosexuals in the next life. It's like the "policy" that prevented blacks from entering the temple and holding the priesthood... turned out that it had no basis in any kind of revealed doctrine.

[rongo]

And my interactions with you and ERMD confirm that... you two believe we already know even though you can't point to a revelation that clarifies the position of homosexuals in the next life. It's like the "policy" that prevented blacks from entering the temple and holding the priesthood... turned out that it had no basis in any kind of revealed doctrine.

I think Brigham Young's statement that "revelation is only needed when experience fails" applies here in a way that it didn't with the priesthood ban. We don't have to have a Revelation™ for everything, and especially not for some things. That looks a lot like wanting to be commanded in all things, but it's really a stall tactic until it is laid down formally, lesser law-style.

[ERMD]

It wasn't my silly comparison. You are the one basing your "aberration" argument on the fact that homosexuality is a minority occurrence and lacks parity to heterosexuality. If that's your basis for concluding that it will be removed in the resurrection, I reject such a conclusion as faulty logic.

I'm not looking for philosophies of men on this. All I'm suggesting is that maybe as a church we are lacking the epistemic humility on the matter to receive additional revelation. And my interactions with you and ERMD confirm that... you two believe we already know even though you can't point to a revelation that clarifies the position of homosexuals in the next life. It's like the "policy" that prevented blacks from entering the temple and holding the priesthood... turned out that it had no basis in any kind of revealed doctrine.

It seems the lack of humility rears its head when we hold our opinions to be superior to the revealed word of God both in scripture and through His designated representatives on the earth. Of course, there is continuing revelation, but to further extend this exercise would mean that virtually any doctrine is up for grabs. I say we hope The Lord decides that it's really OK to not pay tithing, and those who want to stop paying now get a "pass", because who knows, things just may change one day.

[rockpond]

Left handedness and eye color don't have a lot to do with eternal increase do they? But if the Church policy is to allow people with SSA to do everything in the Church except consumate their attraction or have it sealed for eternity -- then the obvious conclusion is that if SSA is in fact something that a person has no control over then the obvious assumption is that God is going to "fix" it in the hereafter. Anyone with some kind of different hope for an end scenario is apparently going to be disappointed and perhaps the Church ought to be straight out honest about that instead of leading anyone on with false hopes to the contrary.

Where I disagree with you here is that Church Policy doesn't dictate God's will.

And you've got an awful lot of assumptions in that small paragraph.

[rockpond]

It seems the lack of humility rears its head when we hold our opinions to be superior to the revealed word of God both in scripture and through His designated representatives on the earth.

Definitely.

Of course, there is continuing revelation, but to further extend this exercise would mean that virtually any doctrine is up for grabs. I say we hope The Lord decides that it's really OK to not pay tithing, and those who want to stop paying now get a "pass", because who knows, things just may change one day.

Except that we have revelation on tithing. We don't have revelation regarding God's will for homosexual persons.

[rockpond]

I think Brigham Young's statement that "revelation is only needed when experience fails" applies here in a way that it didn't with the priesthood ban.

Why?

We don't have to have a Revelation™ for everything, and especially not for some things. That looks a lot like wanting to be commanded in all things, but it's really a stall tactic until it is laid down formally, lesser law-style.

Unless we're wrong. As we seem to have been with the priesthood ban. Sometimes we're mistaken and need correction.

[rockpond]

And oh, how your blood ran cold until the text was changed in the written version . . .

Nope. I'd be fine with that if it were revelation.

I don't attribute the change in the text to President Packer "correcting himself," but rather to Poelman-esque heavy-handed anxiety over how things play. I think the time will come when it will be officially canonized because of members who go too far in representing it as "just an opinion" or "just a suggestion."

I'm confused at who you think was being Poelman-esque.

To me, it seemed like an important correction. Since, as I stated earlier, nowhere in the text does it claim to be revelation. Also, when it was published, the Prophet didn't identify it as revelation. He called it a proclamation. Which I think it is. And an important one.

It's been what... 18 years now? I don't see them canonizing it at this point. And, for each year that passes, I believe that more and more church members will be opposed to canonizing something that could be considered to exclude homosexual loved ones and church members.

[Questing Beast]

...

... we have revelation on tithing. We don't have revelation regarding God's will for homosexual persons.

Of course we do. As pointed out already, some things don't even require a clarification type revelation. They are as common as breathing air, to over 99% of the adult males in this world anyway. The less than one percent who feel inclined to do what the 99%+ don't even have to think about before making a decision are the ones battling upstream, insisting that for millennia the 99%+ have not understood "God's will" vis-a-vis homosexuals. if you take that tack in a Muslim country you'll get whatfor. Ancient pov on homosexuality was, at the most, consensual, it was never legally recognized, and when some potentate tried to legitimize his lovers he got taken down, usually abruptly and permanently. Marriage was always heterosexual in all civilizations that ever amounted to anything. I am speaking in terms that are common knowledge. Now, in this half generation, for the first time in history, we actually have a switch going on in legal recognition, and you want it to become "revelation" after the fact, likening it to 1978 no less. That isn't revelation when looked at that way, it is morphing to suit popular sentiment of the majority.

If the Proclamation on the Family isn't based on revelation, then there is no such thing. The document itself isn't, yet, "canonized", but everything in it is carefully worded according to existing revelation, clarifying for this very moment in time, what gender, sexuality, marriage and eternal life involving those things mean. There is nothing whatsoever to do with allowing anything but "man and wife" in the eternities. Speculation/imagination on the topic of begetting spirit children is pointless: the hereafter is likened to this world, therefore there is no evidence at all of any other "method" for procreation than man and wife....

[rongo]

Why?

Because I don't think the priesthood ban was "wrong," "not God's will," "racist," etc., for one things. Also, because the Church's clear Stimmung on homosexuality, whether ratified in GC or not, harks back to fundamental teachings about "essential characteristics of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose," the purpose of marriage and family, etc. The priesthood ban had to do with something that has been highly restricted throughout almost all times and eras, being limited to very small minorities, globally. I don't think comparing the change that allowing or countenancing gay marriage would entail, doctrinally, with the amount of doctrinal change (if much or any) that 1978 required, is remotely comparable.

Unless we're wrong. As we seem to have been with the priesthood ban.

According to you. I don't think "we were wrong."

Sometimes we're mistaken and need correction.

And you can't possibly see that it might be you that could be mistaken and need correction. Right?

[rongo]

Nope. I'd be fine with that if it were revelation.

I think you're kidding yourself. I wouldn't "be fine" with it if changes allow women to receive the priesthood, but I wouldn't leave the Church over it. I think you would have roughly the same reaction if the PotF were canonized.

I'm confused at who you think was being Poelman-esque.

Whoever had the wording changed in the written version. From what I know about how the committees and Church office employees works, it was not a matter of President Packer insisting that it be changed, or President Monson or a conglomerate of the Brethren, either. While he could have insisted that it not be changed, he let it go because it's not a big deal in the scheme of things (the larger point of his talk). People like you, though, are predictably seizing on such small things and triumphantly parading them around.

To me, it seemed like an important correction. Since, as I stated earlier, nowhere in the text does it claim to be revelation.

At the very least, it's revealing, isn't it, that President Packer thought to call it a revelation. Doesn't that at least inform us how he sees it?

Also, when it was published, the Prophet didn't identify it as revelation. He called it a proclamation.

This has been hammered ad nauseum, but it's important. Things can stem from revelation (for reals) without "thus saith the Lord." In the spirit of Erastus Snow's sentiment: "I feel assured that a word on this subject kindly spoken by our President is a prompting from on high, and I believe that every true Elder in Israel will bear witness that this is the word of the Lord to us at this time" (Journal of Discourses 12:176)

Which I think it is. And an important one.

How so? Why do you think it's important? What about it do you find to be important? Pretty obviously not the teachings you consider to be non-doctrinal and non-revealed.

It's been what... 18 years now? I don't see them canonizing it at this point.

Time will tell. Most of us, though, don't need it to be canonized for it to have the same impact and effect as something presented in GC. It's "a word on this subject kindly spoken by our President."

And, for each year that passes, I believe that more and more church members will be opposed to canonizing something that could be considered to exclude homosexual loved ones and church members.

I don't think you have your finger on the pulse of the worldwide Church population nearly as much as you think you do. Not even close.

[rockpond]

Of course we do. As pointed out already, some things don't even require a clarification type revelation. They are as common as breathing air, to over 99% of the adult males in this world anyway. The less than one percent who feel inclined to do what the 99%+ don't even have to think about before making a decision are the ones battling upstream, insisting that for millennia the 99%+ have not understood "God's will" vis-a-vis homosexuals. if you take that tack in a Muslim country you'll get whatfor. Ancient pov on homosexuality was, at the most, consensual, it was never legally recognized, and when some potentate tried to legitimize his lovers he got taken down, usually abruptly and permanently. Marriage was always heterosexual in all civilizations that ever amounted to anything. I am speaking in terms that are common knowledge. Now, in this half generation, for the first time in history, we actually have a switch going on in legal recognition, and you want it to become "revelation" after the fact, likening it to 1978 no less. That isn't revelation when looked at that way, it is morphing to suit popular sentiment of the majority.

So your point here is that we don't need revelation because we have the philosophies of men regarding homosexuality?

If the Proclamation on the Family isn't based on revelation, then there is no such thing. The document itself isn't, yet, "canonized", but everything in it is carefully worded according to existing revelation, clarifying for this very moment in time, what gender, sexuality, marriage and eternal life involving those things mean. There is nothing whatsoever to do with allowing anything but "man and wife" in the eternities. Speculation/imagination on the topic of begetting spirit children is pointless: the hereafter is likened to this world, therefore there is no evidence at all of any other "method" for procreation than man and wife....

I didn't say that it wasn't based on revelation. I said that it wasn't revelation. It's a proclamation. That's what the Prophet and Apostles have called it. I believe them.

If you want to look at the "evidence" and conclude that spirit children can only be created by a male-female pairing. Go for it. But it still hasn't been revealed to us.

[Calm]

It is natural by the definition of the word natural. I'm not sure what you mean by "NOT natural according to LDS doctrine on gender". Care to reference that?

"Natural" is used in at least two different ways in LDS doctrine. "Natural" does not mean that it will automatically survive refining of the soul as can be demonstrated by all the scriptures talking about how it is necessary to subdue the natural man. Plus while it is natural now for the lion to consider the lamb to be its prey and we don't condemn it in any way for acting on such instinct, we teach that it is the fallen nature of the world that has created such a situation and thus when the world is restored to the state of paradise, such violence will be removed. Surely it is possible that the natural state of homosexual attraction is one of those current instincts that is due to the fallen nature of the world that will be removed in the future? There is nothing that indicates that homosexual is an eternal construct as some other things associated with gender have been taught

It happened in 1978.

What always seems to be left out when this is used as an argument point is that from the very beginning of the ban (whether or not you believe the source was God or man), there was the anticipation that the ban would be lifted and all men would have equal access to the blessings of the eternal ordinances...even if what was taught at times was way off in timing (BY saying it wouldn't happen until all the children of Abel received theirs or the belief that this would only occur after the Second Coming). I have never seen even a hint that the 'ban' on homosexual behaviour as acceptable moral behaviour or even simply homosexual attraction as being taught that sometime in the future it would be something not be controlled and instead is to be nurtured and promoted, in fact the only eternal teachings I've seen from leaders---right or wrong---is that those who have this attraction will no long possess it.

We are in the process of a restoration. I believe that's different.

It seems more akin to a pre-1978 church member couple who is of African descent hoping that someday they'll be allowed to be sealed in the temple.

Again, they were always given hope to believe this in teachings, there is no teaching out there that I can see that can be said to support this without some significant reading into what has been said or written.

And even the priesthood being given to women there are suggestions that this may have been present in the past, Deborah and others being called prophetesses, women referred to with priesthood offices in the NT among other things. (though I personally don't believe the priesthood will be given to women, I believe in something different...something parallel in the sense that the priesthood is the authority and power of Heavenly Father will be given, something that is the authority and power of Heavenly Mother as well as something above that which is the power and authority of the exalted couple that must have both participate in order to be truly God)

If there comes a time that there is a revelation that homosexual behaviour is now approved of by God and that homosexuality is an eternal characteristic of the individual, then it will either be completely out of the blue without doctrinal development OR there have to be in the future new things taught to lay the groundwork for the change. I am not saying this isn't possible, I just find it highly unlikely.

Edited August 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

Because I don't think the priesthood ban was "wrong," "not God's will," "racist," etc., for one things. Also, because the Church's clear Stimmung on homosexuality, whether ratified in GC or not, harks back to fundamental teachings about "essential characteristics of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose," the purpose of marriage and family, etc. The priesthood ban had to do with something that has been highly restricted throughout almost all times and eras, being limited to very small minorities, globally. I don't think comparing the change that allowing or countenancing gay marriage would entail, doctrinally, with the amount of doctrinal change (if much or any) that 1978 required, is remotely comparable.

According to you. I don't think "we were wrong." And you can't possibly see that it might be you that could be mistaken and need correction. Right?

Nope... there is a definite possibility that I could be mistaken. Is there a possibility that you could be mistaken?

The temple/priesthood ban did not have a basis in revelation and yet church leaders (over many decades) created a doctrinal structure to support it. That doctrinal structure didn't make the ban anymore based in God's revealed will than our current creation of a doctrinal structure to exclude homosexuals from temple sealings. We struggled to understand why those of African descent were excluded and so we inserted our mortal rationale. It seems like we're doing the same thing with homosexual policy now.

[canard78]

Because I don't think the priesthood ban was "wrong," "not God's will," "racist," etc., for one things.

You'll be able to produce some evidence then that the ban was done by revelation then will you? I've looked long and hard. I've found none yet.

I accept the later leaders needed a spiritual witness to feel comfortable restoring the p'hood to blacks. But there's no evidence to say those who started it were inspired.

[ERMD]

Definitely.

Except that we have revelation on tithing. We don't have revelation regarding God's will for homosexual persons.

We do. You simply refuse to accept it.

[rockpond]

I think you're kidding yourself. I wouldn't "be fine" with it if changes allow women to receive the priesthood, but I wouldn't leave the Church over it. I think you would have roughly the same reaction if the PotF were canonized.

I don't have a problem with the Proclamation. We have it prominently displayed in our home atop the piano in our family room.

Whoever had the wording changed in the written version. From what I know about how the committees and Church office employees works, it was not a matter of President Packer insisting that it be changed, or President Monson or a conglomerate of the Brethren, either. While he could have insisted that it not be changed, he let it go because it's not a big deal in the scheme of things (the larger point of his talk). People like you, though, are predictably seizing on such small things and triumphantly parading them around.

People like me? Who are "people like me"? And how am I "triumphantly parading" this small thing around? I simply stated that the Proclamation on the Family isn't revelation.

As for the change to President Packer's talk, we are speculating as to who made the change. Neither of us know unless you care to provide a reference to back your conclusion that it wasn't his desire. I assumed that it was his change since it was HIS address. But if you don't believe the change came from President Packer, nor President Monson, nor the Brethren... then who exactly is altering conference talks behind the scenes? Can we no longer trust the Ensign to accurately represent what church leaders wish to communicate?

At the very least, it's revealing, isn't it, that President Packer thought to call it a revelation. Doesn't that at least inform us how he sees it? This has been hammered ad nauseum, but it's important. Things can stem from revelation (for reals) without "thus saith the Lord." In the spirit of Erastus Snow's sentiment: "I feel assured that a word on this subject kindly spoken by our President is a prompting from on high, and I believe that every true Elder in Israel will bear witness that this is the word of the Lord to us at this time" (Journal of Discourses 12:176)

It could inform us how President Packer sees it. Or it could have been a slip that he corrected because he felt it was a mistake. And maybe his original comments in that article on homosexuality were also how he feels or maybe the correction represents how he feels. I think we have to assume that the published corrects are what he intended to teach.

How so? Why do you think it's important? What about it do you find to be important? Pretty obviously not the teachings you consider to be non-doctrinal and non-revealed.

Well, it's all doctrinal. And it's a great reminder to me of the importance of my role as a father and husband. It also keeps me focused on my family and the importance of families in general.

Time will tell. Most of us, though, don't need it to be canonized for it to have the same impact and effect as something presented in GC. It's "a word on this subject kindly spoken by our President."

100% agree. I've never suggested that it need to be canonized (I wasn't the one who brought up that topic) and I think it probably rises above something presented in GC as it came from the united efforts of the FP & Q12.

I don't think you have your finger on the pulse of the worldwide Church population nearly as much as you think you do. Not even close.

How much do I think that I do?

I'm looking at the increase in the number of LDS facebook, blog, and podcast communities who do seem to support different views on homosexuality. I'm looking at anecdotal evidence like Hans Mattson: an emeritus 70 who disagrees with the church policy on homosexuals. And I'm taking into consideration John Dehlin's data on why people leave. And I'm including conversations with friends and family members.

[rockpond]

We do. You simply refuse to accept it.

Okay... where is the revelation on God's will for homosexual persons?

[rockpond]

"Natural" is used in at least two different ways in LDS doctrine. "Natural" does not mean that it will automatically survive refining of the soul as can be demonstrated by all the scriptures talking about how it is necessary to subdue the natural man. Plus while it is natural now for the lion to consider the lamb to be its prey and we don't condemn it in any way for acting on such instinct, we teach that it is the fallen nature of the world that has created such a situation and thus when the world is restored to the state of paradise, such violence will be removed. Surely it is possible that the natural state of homosexual attraction is one of those current instincts that is due to the fallen nature of the world that will be removed in the future? There is nothing that indicates that homosexual is an eternal construct as some other things associated with gender have been taught

It's possible that homosexual attraction is something that will be removed in the next life but we don't yet know one way or another.

What always seems to be left out when this is used as an argument point is that from the very beginning of the ban (whether or not you believe the source was God or man), there was the anticipation that the ban would be lifted and all men would have equal access to the blessings of the eternal ordinances...even if what was taught at times was way off in timing (BY saying it wouldn't happen until all the children of Abel received theirs or the belief that this would only occur after the Second Coming). I have never seen even a hint that the 'ban' on homosexual behaviour as acceptable moral behaviour or even simply homosexual attraction as being taught that sometime in the future it would be something not be controlled and instead is to be nurtured and promoted, in fact the only eternal teachings I've seen from leaders---right or wrong---is that those who have this attraction will no long possess it.

The teachings on the priesthood/temple ban evolved quite a bit over the decades that it was in place (see Lester Bush's article, Mormonism's Negro Doctrine). At times it was taught that someday it would change and at times it was taught that it wouldn't be until after the second coming. And there were certainly things taught (by prophets and apostles) that we disavow today.

Similarly, our teachings regarding homosexuality have evolved. I don't think that President Packer or President Kimball's teachings from several decades back are even remotely comparable to where we are today.

Again, they were always given hope to believe this in teachings, there is no teaching out there that I can see that can be said to support this without some significant reading into what has been said or written.

And even the priesthood being given to women there are suggestions that this may have been present in the past, Deborah and others being called prophetesses, women referred to with priesthood offices in the NT among other things. (though I personally don't believe the priesthood will be given to women, I believe in something different...something parallel in the sense that the priesthood is the authority and power of Heavenly Father will be given, something that is the authority and power of Heavenly Mother as well as something above that which is the power and authority of the exalted couple that must have both participate in order to be truly God)

If there comes a time that there is a revelation that homosexual behaviour is now approved of by God and that homosexuality is an eternal characteristic of the individual, then it will either be completely out of the blue without doctrinal development OR there have to be in the future new things taught to lay the groundwork for the change. I am not saying this isn't possible, I just find it highly unlikely.

I respect that position. But I look at the developments within the church over the past 50 years and see it as likely. And have hope that there could be some beautiful new doctrine revealed pertaining to this subject.