Eternal Same-Gender Procreation

[CV75]

But this is exactly what they are doing when they make bold statements about how certain things, like gay marriage, will never change. If they can never change they must be claiming to have a perfect understanding of God's will. This is the problem.

Stating a position, however boldly, is not “exactly” (the same as) claiming to know God’s will perfectly. They are stating the Church’s position within the purview of their calling and according to what they do know, both of which rely upon the Lord’s will. While fallible human beings, they are also relatively more reliable than any who are not called and who do not operate in their councils.

 

I have become much more cynical because of these types of claims/answers. Claiming that a blessing of safety is fullfilled because the family died and is therefore incapable of dying again is beyond ludicrous. It is absolutly a rationalization.

LOL I think you must be cynical for other reasons, especially if you’re that upset about how this sister lives her faith. This is your inclination, but you haven't any better knowledge or can rationalize any better than anyone else, as far as I can tell.

 

I would prefer they just say, "I was wrong. I didn't understand the will of God like I thought." It's that simple. It's reasonable. Instead we rationalize crazy explanations for why safety really means death.

Of course you would prefer that, but why would Elder Cristofferson say that about the Church's position, and say it now?

 

(And he wasn't discussing heaven-as-safety, the sister was.)

[carbon dioxide]

Except that according to the first revelation on the first vision, written in Joseph's own hand, God didn't have a body of flesh and bone. That developed later. The lectures on faith also describe God as a spirit. This was part of the Book of Commandments. It was the Doctrine in the D&C. Understanding changes all the time, otherwise we would be polygamists who don't allow blacks to hold the priesthood and believe that God is a spirit. Those teachings have all been blown up.

Visually speaking, a spirit has form just as a resurrected being.  If Satan was to appear to us, we would not be able to tell whether he had a body of flesh and bone or not.  Joseph could not have known simply by looking at the Father and Son whether they had a body of flesh and bone as there is no evidence he touched either of them.  The only thing Joseph could have concluded from the First Vision is that they were two different beings with form but as to whether they had a body or not he could not know.  There is a whole section in the D&C on this subject.  Spirits and resurrected beings are distinguished by touch, not sight.

 

This is why when Jesus appeared to the apostles after the resurrection that he had them touch him.  SImply looking at Jesus they could not determine whether he had a body of flesh and bone or not.  They saw that Jesus had arms and legs because spirits have arms and legs but simply looking is not enough.  So the revelation that stated the Father has a body of flesh and bone added to what was known.  It was known the Father was separate from the Son.  The Father had form.  Those ideas were retained with the new revelation that added the information that the Father had a physical body with that form. 

Edited February 27, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Stating a position, however boldly, is not “exactly” (the same as) claiming to know God’s will perfectly.

I don't know how many different ways I can say this. They are not just speaking boldly, sharing their view, or proclaiming a teaching of the church. They are saying it will NEVER change. I would hope that if they are making that kind of statement they know perfectly, otherwise they have no business making a statement like that.

 

 

LOL I think you must be cynical for other reasons, especially if you’re that upset about how this sister lives her faith. This is your inclination, but you haven't any better knowledge or can rationalize any better than anyone else, as far as I can tell.

Haha. You're right that there are multiple issues that have made me more cynical over the past year but this is a good example. It doesn't bother me at all that the sister finds a comforting way to make sense of the tragedy. I feel terrible for her. What does bother me is this story being held up to larger audiences as an example of a prophetic blessing being realized. This is not a faith promoting story. However, I am glad that the sister found a way to not blame herself for the death of her family. Since the blessing was predicated upon the missionaries obedience and dilligence in the mission field it would have been very reasonable for her to think that she wasn't good enough to receive the blessings of protection for her family. That would have compounded the tragedy and could have crushed the young sister. I'm glad she didn't take that path toward understanding why the blessing didn't work.

[KevinG]

Finding comfort in the midst of tragedy, by seeing an eternal purpose, is a good thing.

 

I once had a friend who lamented, "we don't get enough stories in the Ensign about people whose lives have been filled with tragedy, and yet they still retain their faith."

 

Implying that a faithful life will lead to earthy paradise and no cares would be a cruelty.

[CV75]

I don't know how many different ways I can say this. They are not just speaking boldly, sharing their view, or proclaiming a teaching of the church. They are saying it will NEVER change. I would hope that if they are making that kind of statement they know perfectly, otherwise they have no business making a statement like that.

You don't have to keep saying it; I do understand.

 

Yes, they are saying it will never change, and rightly do so within the form and function of the doctrine of Christ, which we as followers share with them. That it was structured and operates in a fallible state is irrelevant.

 

 

Haha. You're right that there are multiple issues that have made me more cynical over the past year but this is a good example.

"Made you?" Neither cynicism nor faithfulness are externally generated (this would be the sign-seeking you condemned earlier). We hear the word, see the events, etc. and apply faith or doubt according to our will and inclination.

 

Using evidence as the reason for faith and doubt is also rationalization, which you also condemned. Just as faith is the evidence of things not seen, so is doubt—their difference is between things that are not seen which are true and things which are imagined which not true.

 

At any rate, sign-seeking and rationalization are not the same thing as saying “It will never change” within the context of the doctrine of Christ as indicated above and in my other posts. They have nothing to do with those principles at all.

[Pahoran]

All the prophets from Brigham Young to Spencer Kimball were wrong about teaching the inferiority of blacks, so this argument doesn't work for me. In a conservative church, like judaism or mormonism there is great emphasis placed on tradition so it doesn't surprise me at all that negative tradtions could be carried on for many generations.

CFR, please, that "All the prophets from Brigham Young to Spencer Kimball" actually taught "the inferiority of blacks."

Thanks,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Except that according to the first revelation on the first vision, written in Joseph's own hand, God didn't have a body of flesh and bone. That developed later.

CFR, please.

I've read all of the First Vision accounts. I don't remember any of they saying, anywhere, that God was not corporeal.

Thanks,

Pahoran

[Bobbieaware]

Visually speaking, a spirit has form just as a resurrected being. If Satan was to appear to us, we would not be able to tell whether he had a body of flesh and bone or not. Joseph could not have known simply by looking at the Father and Son whether they had a body of flesh and bone as there is no evidence he touched either of them. The only thing Joseph could have concluded from the First Vision is that they were two different beings with form but as to whether they had a body or not he could not know. There is a whole section in the D&C on this subject. Spirits and resurrected beings are distinguished by touch, not sight.

This is why when Jesus appeared to the apostles after the resurrection that he had them touch him. SImply looking at Jesus they could not determine whether he had a body of flesh and bone or not. They saw that Jesus had arms and legs because spirits have arms and legs but simply looking is not enough. So the revelation that stated the Father has a body of flesh and bone added to what was known. It was known the Father was separate from the Son. The Father had form. Those ideas were retained with the new revelation that added the information that the Father had a physical body with that form.

Excellent analysis! An interesting point to ponder in this discussion is that the Book of Mormo prophet Amulek calls the resurrected body a "SPIRITUAL BODY" and then goes on to say that in the resurrection "THE WHOLE" of the once-fallen human body becomes wholly spiritual. So if I rightly understand Amulek's point, he's saying that even the tangible flesh and bone component of the resurrected body somehow becomes spiritual in nature even though that component remains tangible. So as one keeps Amulek's insighti in mind, he might ask himself "where do the tangible elements of the resurrected body end and where do the spiritual elements begin if the nature of entire body has in some significant way become wholly spiritual in nature?"

The point I'm trying to make here may seem a rather obscure one, but I believe it is very significant point. Further, in this same regard, it's important to understand the apostle Paul is in full accord with Amulek's doctrine of the pervading spiritual nature of the entire resurrected body, for Paul also testified that in the resurrection "the last Adam" (Jesus Christ) became "A QUICKINING SPIRIT." So here Paul speaks of Christ as being a Spirit, and this even though in a post-resurrection appearance Christ told his disciples that he most definitely WAS NOT a spirit! Confusing? Not for those who have been taught of the Spirit.

So what's my point? The point is that if a fair minded person is aware of the unique nature of a "spiritual body" (i.e a glorified resurrected body), he can understand how the inexperienced 14 year old Joseph Smith would not have likely understood the true nature of the resurrected bodies of the Father and the Son, mysterious bodies that are somehow simultaneously both tangible and wholly spiritual.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[carbon dioxide]

All the prophets from Brigham Young to Spencer Kimball were wrong about teaching the inferiority of blacks..

Joseph Fielding Smith

 

“I stand by every word in the article,” President Smith said, after reading it aloud in Mr. Arthur’s presence. “The Mormon Church does not believe, nor does it teach, that the Negro is an inferior being. Mentally, and physically, the Negro is capable of great achievement, as great and in some cases greater than the potential of the white race. He can become a lawyer, a doctor, a scientist, and he can achieve great heights. The word ’inferior’ is indeed unfortunate.”

 

Mr. Arthur asked President Smith if a Negro boy can pass the sacrament in the Mormon Church, as 12- and 13-year-old white Mormon boys do. President Smith replied, “No”.

He then was asked whether Negro boys could prepare the sacrament, as 14- and 15-year old white Mormon boys do. The answer was “No.” “Can he bless the sacrament or perform baptism, as the 16-, 17-and 18-year old white Mormon boys do?” Mr. Arthur asked. Again the reply was, “no.”

 

“The Negro cannot achieve priesthood in the Mormon Church,” President Smith said. “No consideration is being given now to changing the doctrine of the Church to permit him to attain that status. Such a change can come about only through divine revelation, and no one can predict when a divine revelation will occur. “I wouldn’t want you to believe that we bear any animosity toward the Negro. ‘Darkies’ are wonderful people, and they have their place in our Church.” (Jeff Nye,“Memo from a Mormon,” LOOK (October 22, 1963), p. 97)

 

"The Latter-day Saints, commonly called 'Mormons', have no animosity toward the Negro. Neither have they described him as belonging to an 'INFERIOR' race." (Joseph Fielding Smith Deseret News June 14, 1962, p. 3)

 

Where is there any teaching from Brigham Young to Spencer W Kimball that blacks are inferior.  It is apparent to me that Joseph Fielding Smith was not aware of any teaching.

Edited February 28, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[JLHPROF]

DEL

Edited February 28, 2015 by JLHPROF

[HappyJackWagon]

CFR, please, that "All the prophets from Brigham Young to Spencer Kimball" actually taught "the inferiority of blacks."

Thanks,

Pahoran

Seriously? I'm not going to waste my time looking up this reference. There are multiple examples, including first presidency statements.

 

ETA: These types of discussions have been going for so long that I have to believe your ignorance is willful. For heavens sake, read the race and the priesthood essay. There would be no need to disavow teachings of inferiority if those teachings didn't exist. Of

Edited February 28, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[HappyJackWagon]

CFR, please.

I've read all of the First Vision accounts. I don't remember any of they saying, anywhere, that God was not corporeal.

Thanks,

Pahoran

Read the Lectures on Faith which was originally part of the D&C.

[Calm]

God touched his eyes with his finger and said “[Joseph] this is my beloved Son hear him.” As soon as the Lord had touched his eyes with his finger he immediately saw the Savior. After meeting, a few of us questioned him about the matter and he told us at the bottom of the meeting house steps that he was in the House of Father Smith in Kirtland when Joseph made this declaration, and that Joseph while speaking of it put his finger to his right eye, suiting the action with the words so as to illustrate and at the same time impress the [occurrence] on the minds of those unto whom He was speaking.

—Diary of Charles Lowell Walker (Logan, UT: Utah State University Press, 1980), 2:755–56 [recorded 2 February 1893]

 

Granted, late recall but interesting nonetheless….

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision

[Pahoran]

Seriously? I'm not going to waste my time looking up this reference. There are multiple examples, including first presidency statements.

 

ETA: These types of discussions have been going for so long that I have to believe your ignorance is willful. For heavens sake, read the race and the priesthood essay. There would be no need to disavow teachings of inferiority if those teachings didn't exist. Of

 

So, IOW, you cannot support your assertion.

 

Thank you for admitting that.

 

You have merely assumed that such teachings existed.

 

Got it.

 

So before you fire back with some snarky remark, I suggest you read CO2's post #109.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Previously:

Except that according to the first revelation on the first vision, written in Joseph's own hand, God didn't have a body of flesh and bone. That developed later.

To which I responded:

CFR, please.

I've read all of the First Vision accounts. I don't remember any of they saying, anywhere, that God was not corporeal.

And now:
 

Read the Lectures on Faith which was originally part of the D&C.

But Happy Jack, you originally referenced "the first revelation on the first vision, written in Joseph's own hand." Are you now saying that you were really talking about the LoF, written by Sidney Rigdon?

 

How were we supposed to know that?

Regards,
Pahoran

[canard78]

It's not that simple, Rockpond.

What if the General Authorities came out tomorrow, and stated that it was now O.K. to drink alcohol, or view pornography, or something like that.

I might be tempted to conclude that God no longer directs his prophets today, because I find such habits appalling. I would seriously consider leaving the church, wouldn't you?

Perhaps this is what carbon dioxide was getting at.

You'd leave the church over alcohol being removed from the word of wisdom???

It's amazing how lots of Mormons have managed to vilify something so harmless. The abuse of alcohol, now that's a problem. But an occasional drink... I've lots of good, moral friends and family who enjoy an occasional drink.

[carbon dioxide]

You'd leave the church over alcohol being removed from the word of wisdom???

It's amazing how lots of Mormons have managed to vilify something so harmless. The abuse of alcohol, now that's a problem. But an occasional drink... I've lots of good, moral friends and family who enjoy an occasional drink.

Alcohol is not harmless.  Tens of thousands are killed each year because of it.  The problem with moderation of alcohol is people are not moderate all the time.  I have known a number of people who are usually moderate but they fall off the wagon ever now and then.  

 

I would not leave the Church is the the Word of Wisdom was taken back to how it was originally given (counsel and not commandment) but I still would never drink it.  It's a waste of money and I like being sober.  I hate it when I take medication that throws me off mentally so the last thing I want is alcohol affecting my thinking process. 

Edited February 28, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Stone holm]

Based mostly on the 1995 Proclamation on the Family, Mormonism currently teaches that gender is eternal and an important aspect of our individual identities, both now, as well as in the pre- and post- mortal realms. The Proclamation is rather vague as to what post-mortal gender roles will be.

It is obvious that current LDS leadership promote the idea that LDS doctrine will never change to embrace same-sex relationships. However, there is often much discussion among those of us that are younger, speculating on the possibility that that could change sometime in the future. The thinking seems to be that previous generations held similar beliefs about other doctrinal aspects that at the time, seemed unchangeable, but that revelation altered the church's stance in later years.

There definitely seems to be a generational divide among church members on the issue of the possibility that the church may, at some future date, under a different prophet and quorum of apostles, reveal that God may allow for eternal same-gender relationships.

I realize that there is an ongoing objection to this line of thinking by more traditional/conservative members who are emphatic that the current leadership cannot be wrong. Their criticism at those who are open to the idea of same-sex relationships usually centers around faithfulness in sustaining current church leaders, and accepting their sermons as unchangeable scripture. This idea is certainly worth ongoing exploration, but I'd like to focus this thread on a different aspect of the discussion.

Specifically, I'd like to focus on one facet of this discussion:

Those traditional, conservative Latter-day Saints frequently raise the objection that same-sex relationships would refute the entire purpose of the Plan of Salvation because, they claim, same-sex relationships could never be procreative. The thinking is that because the entire purpose of the Plan of Salvation is to experience a fulfillment of joy in having posterity, and because gays and lesbians cannot (and presumably will not ever be able to) procreate, that such couplings are contrary to God's design for divine family relationships.

As I have personally explored this aspect of this topic over the years, I see two solutions...

First: I think there's certainly the possibility that God could recognize and allow for eternal marital relationships that do not produce children. This school of thought suggests that in Heavenly Father's kingdom, there would be innumerable roles, jobs, functions, positions... (whatever you want to call them). Not all of God's children will receive exaltation in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom--in fact, two thirds of those that receive Celestial Glory will not be procreative... Given how little is revealed in LDS cannon about Celestial roles, it seems at least possible (if not yet entirely plausible for those more conservative Latter-day Saints) that Heavenly Father could allow for same-sex relationships to fulfill other, non-procreative roles in the celestial kingdom (i.e. care-giving roles such as child caring, child rearing, husbandry of celestial flora and fauna, celestial art, music, dance, or whatever other roles may exist in Celestial creation). Given that not all of God's children have the same gifts, desires, talents, and personalities, and that this life is a time to prove and test and grow and learn to become our best selves in preparation for a degree of divine glory, it makes sense that our identities won't be universally the same in the afterlife.

So... that's the first explanation that came to my mind, as I've mulled this over the last decade or so.

The second solution is really what I'd like to suggest as the topic of this thread: as our medical technology evolves, it's becoming clear that here on earth, parents sharing the same gender will soon be able to conceive children, and this will no longer be a barrier to their ability to procreate. This is a topic I've mentioned before, in the past, by pointing to scientific studies showing same-sex parenting in mice. I've suggested that science will soon be able to allow same-sex couples to procreate. Today, it appears we are certainly on the verge of that happening:

Of course, it's very evident that there will be many questions and discussions on the ethics of such medical assistance (or tampering, depending on one's view). Arguments will be made, such as, "Just because we can do something, it doesn't mean it's right to do so." And as a father myself, I think those are valid points to consider. I am not yet convinced or comfortable with designer children. I don't believe it's wise for mortals to play in that sandbox, given that actual children are at stake, and because we are mortal and have limited knowledge, we wouldn't--we couldn't--know the effect of such medical interference until producing a child which may or may not be negatively affected. So, IMO, the ethical questions/concerns are definitely valid. But even those ethical questions are not what I wish to discuss, in this thread.

Having said all of the above, with the acknowledgement and full awareness of all of the above-mentioned theological and ethical arguments against medically-assisted same-sex procreation, I'm finally arriving at the focus of my thread, which is simply this:

SINCE LDS scripture thus far has revealed virtually nothing about how spirit bodies are created, and

IF, here and now in our mortal state, we, as limited humans, are already capable of pro-creating life from the seeds of two same-sex parents, and

IF, from an eternal perspective, God is truly both omniscient and omnipotent, and

IF, from an eternal perspective, with God, all things are possible,

THEN it seems to me that the argument that "same-sex parents cannot and could not ever procreate" is no longer a valid reason for thinking that same-sex parents will never be a celestial reality, or at the very least, isn't as concrete as it once was.

I guess you just labeled me a conservative, which I doubt anyone else on this board would do. As I believe the fundamental flaw in the gay argument as far as acceptance by the Church of SSM is the fact that the primary purpose of the Church is to prepare members for Exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom and one of the major distinguishing features of a Celestial Being is the ability to spawn spirit children. And Brigham Young and the early prophets of the Restoration all indicated how that was done. The fact that more modern prophets prefer to shy away from talking about meat, does not change things. While it might be true that gay couples could be gardeners or nannies in the hereafter Celestial realms, somehow that doesn't ring true

[canard78]

Alcohol is not harmless. Tens of thousands are killed each year because of it. The problem with moderation of alcohol is people are not moderate all the time. I have known a number of people who are usually moderate but they fall off the wagon ever now and then.

I would not leave the Church is the the Word of Wisdom was taken back to how it was originally given (counsel and not commandment) but I still would never drink it. It's a waste of money and I like being sober. I hate it when I take medication that throws me off mentally so the last thing I want is alcohol affecting my thinking process.

So do you also not drive? (Over 1million road traffic deaths per year). Or how about eating cake? (In Europe there are an estimates 400,000 deaths per year from obesity/excess weight).

Drinking irresponsibly, driving irresponsibly, eating irresponsibly all have one thing in common... The clue is in the second word.

Most of the people who drive, do not meet tragedy from doing so. The same can be said of the majority of people who drink and eat sweat/fatty treats.

The problem with irresponsible driving/drinking/eating is not the mere presence of cars, alcohol or cake. It's the fact that some people use those things irresponsibly.

One drink on a Friday evening can be a great way of relaxing and winding down for the weekend. One slice of cake is a nice way of having a tasty treat occasionally. And cars are great when care and attention is paid to the traffic conditions.

How is all of this relevant to the OP? Well I think the vilification of alcohol in Mormonism exceeds the danger it actually poses. We have made it far more dangerous and evil in our minds than it is, in reality.

I can remember, some years ago, finding out a Mormon friend enjoyed an occasional cigarette (1 or 2 a month). I was utterly shocked and devastated. I urged them to see the Bishop and to repent. I'm not sure I'd have been any more or less affronted if I'd learned they were visiting a prostitute with similar frequency. It was a sin and threatening their salvation all the same.

The human brain hates uncertainty and nuance. The brain is already gobbling up around 20% of the body's resources so has to become as efficient as possible (or sometimes a bit lazy). It's less mental effort to make things black and white. So lumping gay marriage (in all forms) into "evil, without exception" is easier to do... Just like it is to make alcohol "evil without exception."

This means that we become so fixed on an idea that we are not open to change. The comment I initially replied to said he would leave the church over the acceptance of alcohol consumption. Many have said the same over the acceptance of gay marriage in the church. They've fixed the idea that "X is true, no exceptions" so firmly that they are not open to the idea of future light and knowledge that could reverse that policy/doctrine.

In case you're interested, this is partly because, over time, the brain will stop a function in the Thalamus from saying "on the other hand..." The Thalamus activity becomes asymmetrical rather than symmetrical which means that the "intangible reality" (faith-based conclusions) become just as real and absolute as the tangible. The topic which can only ever really be a belief becomes just as real and absolute as the chair/bed/floor you are on while reading this post.

[mikegriffith1]

I believe that Mormons who think/hope that some day the Church will change its doctrine on gender, marriage, and procreation are going to be disappointed and may face a crisis of faith (if they are not already). For one thing, such a change would require outright repudiation of numerous passages of scripture.

 

Same-gender couples can only produce children by technological intervention. Science can now do many things to alter the natural, created state of a person.  But to infer from this fact that therefore gospel doctrine on gender, marriage, and procreation may change strikes me as flawed logic based on a secular, humanistic worldview.

[BlueDreams]

So do you also not drive? (Over 1million road traffic deaths per year). Or how about eating cake? (In Europe there are an estimates 400,000 deaths per year from obesity/excess weight).

Drinking irresponsibly, driving irresponsibly, eating irresponsibly all have one thing in common... The clue is in the second word.

Most of the people who drive, do not meet tragedy from doing so. The same can be said of the majority of people who drink and eat sweat/fatty treats.

The problem with irresponsible driving/drinking/eating is not the mere presence of cars, alcohol or cake. It's the fact that some people use those things irresponsibly.

One drink on a Friday evening can be a great way of relaxing and winding down for the weekend. One slice of cake is a nice way of having a tasty treat occasionally. And cars are great when care and attention is paid to the traffic conditions.

How is all of this relevant to the OP? Well I think the vilification of alcohol in Mormonism exceeds the danger it actually poses. We have made it far more dangerous and evil in our minds than it is, in reality.

 

First, the majority of people who drink or eat sweat are always going to be judged of me. I have my limits in accepting human behavior, and that's it.

Second, You are aware that 35-41% of traffic deaths entailed some alcohol, right (the lower number 35%, I believe are legally intoxicated)? I don't know, I just found it ironic that you'd use that statistic, of all things, to prove the point. 

 

That stated, I don't think that carbon dioxide was villifying alcohol. Villifying would be stating something like all who take even a sip are going to hell. But it's still by far not a harmless drug. I'm aware that people can do so, and I'm not going to jump on board and say that one drink on the weekend is going to spiral into insanity. I also don't think smoking marijuana here and there should be penalized. It doesn't take away the fact that they're not harmless. 

This means that we become so fixed on an idea that we are not open to change. The comment I initially replied to said he would leave the church over the acceptance of alcohol consumption. Many have said the same over the acceptance of gay marriage in the church. They've fixed the idea that "X is true, no exceptions" so firmly that they are not open to the idea of future light and knowledge that could reverse that policy/doctrine.

 

I can remember, some years ago, finding out a Mormon friend enjoyed an occasional cigarette (1 or 2 a month). I was utterly shocked and devastated. I urged them to see the Bishop and to repent. I'm not sure I'd have been any more or less affronted if I'd learned they were visiting a prostitute with similar frequency. It was a sin and threatening their salvation all the same.

The human brain hates uncertainty and nuance. The brain is already gobbling up around 20% of the body's resources so has to become as efficient as possible (or sometimes a bit lazy). It's less mental effort to make things black and white. So lumping gay marriage (in all forms) into "evil, without exception" is easier to do... Just like it is to make alcohol "evil without exception."

 

Are you sure it's not just supplanting a problem you had in the past and tying that to one post which the majority would probably disagree with. The only thing I'm really surprised by is that the friend was able to just have 1-2 cigarettes. Tobacco has a very high addiction rate.  I would definitely be more horrified and affronted if he visited a prostitute one or twice a month. 

 

I can hold nuance in my mind fairly easily. Oh sure, some things surprise me from time to time, but I usually don't think all too black and white. That stated, like CD over here, even if the WoW went back to it's original guideline policy, I wouldn't be hopping to by me some wine for occasional use. I also very rarely eat cake and have a hard time finishing a slice before the sugar overload kicks in. I'll never smoke as well. I'm a health freak and one who prefers not to use derived substances to relax. I can do that pretty well already.   

 

But the WoW isn't akin to Gay Marriage. There isn't a history of marriage being a guideline, but a fairly straight forward command. I would hold more discrepancy for an alteration in policy, because there's no precedent for it and (again, unlike WoW) it is altering fairly core doctrines/practices. That's a problem to me and for others. It's not because I feel that gay marriage is all evil and will someday lead to the downfall of society. I think a bunch of other things are doing a fairly good job of it with or without gay marriage. It's not the root of all evil, at best it is a symptom. The trend in how we view marriage and do marriage was already a problem long before SSM came along. I think that in the here and now, there are temporal reasons that are fairly solid for, if not gay marriage, then civil unions with equal rights/protections to better care for family situations and general security. That's completely different than thinking that I see it as a divinely sanctioned practice.  

 

I also really doubt this has much to do with black and white thinking. At least at first brush. Human development also means that we do learn adaptation, flexibility, and nuance overtime (like past mid childhood). 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited March 2, 2015 by BlueDreams

[california boy]

You'd leave the church over alcohol being removed from the word of wisdom???

It's amazing how lots of Mormons have managed to vilify something so harmless. The abuse of alcohol, now that's a problem. But an occasional drink... I've lots of good, moral friends and family who enjoy an occasional drink.

 

I wonder where that puts Christ?  Not only did He drink alcohol, He also made it and helped distribute it. I can just see Ferdinand55 going before Christ and telling Him that he left the church because the leaders allowed the consumption of alcohol.  And Christ asking Ferdinand55 if he felt he was more righteous that Christ for not drinking alcohol.  

[carbon dioxide]

So do you also not drive? (Over 1million road traffic deaths per year). Or how about eating cake? (In Europe there are an estimates 400,000 deaths per year from obesity/excess weight).

Drinking irresponsibly, driving irresponsibly, eating irresponsibly all have one thing in common... The clue is in the second word.

Most of the people who drive, do not meet tragedy from doing so. The same can be said of the majority of people who drink and eat sweat/fatty treats.

The problem with irresponsible driving/drinking/eating is not the mere presence of cars, alcohol or cake. It's the fact that some people use those things irresponsibly.

One drink on a Friday evening can be a great way of relaxing and winding down for the weekend. One slice of cake is a nice way of having a tasty treat occasionally. And cars are great when care and attention is paid to the traffic conditions.

How is all of this relevant to the OP? Well I think the vilification of alcohol in Mormonism exceeds the danger it actually poses. We have made it far more dangerous and evil in our minds than it is, in reality.

I can remember, some years ago, finding out a Mormon friend enjoyed an occasional cigarette (1 or 2 a month). I was utterly shocked and devastated. I urged them to see the Bishop and to repent. I'm not sure I'd have been any more or less affronted if I'd learned they were visiting a prostitute with similar frequency. It was a sin and threatening their salvation all the same.

The human brain hates uncertainty and nuance. The brain is already gobbling up around 20% of the body's resources so has to become as efficient as possible (or sometimes a bit lazy). It's less mental effort to make things black and white. So lumping gay marriage (in all forms) into "evil, without exception" is easier to do... Just like it is to make alcohol "evil without exception."

This means that we become so fixed on an idea that we are not open to change. The comment I initially replied to said he would leave the church over the acceptance of alcohol consumption. Many have said the same over the acceptance of gay marriage in the church. They've fixed the idea that "X is true, no exceptions" so firmly that they are not open to the idea of future light and knowledge that could reverse that policy/doctrine.

In case you're interested, this is partly because, over time, the brain will stop a function in the Thalamus from saying "on the other hand..." The Thalamus activity becomes asymmetrical rather than symmetrical which means that the "intangible reality" (faith-based conclusions) become just as real and absolute as the tangible. The topic which can only ever really be a belief becomes just as real and absolute as the chair/bed/floor you are on while reading this post.

1 million traffic deaths each year?  Actually the number is less than 40,000 per year.  Yes we are all going to die of something.  When one looks at the negative aspects of what alcohol does to society whether early deaths, drunk driving or family problems, I just think it is more as a negative than a positive.  Most domestic problems that police have to deal with have an alcohol component to them.  I don't mind if people drink responsibly.  When I go to my relatives of my wife, some of them drink.  It does not bother me.  My liver does not have to process their alcohol.  It is their body not mine.  I just will not drink it even if the Church was to come out and say members could drink.  I have zero desire to drink it.  If Thomas Monson was to offer me a beer and a hundred bucks and say to me that it is not a sin if I drink the beer, I will pass.  I rather have chocolate milk.

[HappyJackWagon]

Previously:

To which I responded:

CFR, please.

I've read all of the First Vision accounts. I don't remember any of they saying, anywhere, that God was not corporeal.

And now:

 

But Happy Jack, you originally referenced "the first revelation on the first vision, written in Joseph's own hand." Are you now saying that you were really talking about the LoF, written by Sidney Rigdon?

 

How were we supposed to know that?

Regards,

Pahoran

I referenced both. Take another look

[HappyJackWagon]

CFR, please, that "All the prophets from Brigham Young to Spencer Kimball" actually taught "the inferiority of blacks."

Thanks,

Pahoran

This might be a start for you. I'm sure you've read the letters between the first presidency and Lowry Nelson about the issues of race doctrine but here's a brief refresher.

 

 

From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it is has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.

 

Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient partiarchs till now. God's rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous. Modern Israel has been similarly directed.

 

We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this are, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.

(Bold is mine)

 

There are other gems in these letters that will elucidate the church's official positon for you. Again, taken with the official 1st Presidency statement from August 1949 and the admission in the race/priesthood essay that past teachings needed to be disavowed would indicate that the church and it's leadership were on the wrong side of the race issue.

 

 

August 17, 1949 1st Presidency Statement ,... the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes

I didn't want to have to look up these references again because I thought they were pretty well known. But there you go. Hope that helps, Pahoran.

 

ETA- Bold

Edited March 3, 2015 by HappyJackWagon