KevinG Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 17 minutes ago, Senator said: Mormons are weird! I think the word you are looking for is peculiar. 1
Senator Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 5 minutes ago, KevinG said: I think the word you are looking for is peculiar. No, I found the one I was looking for.
KevinG Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 4 minutes ago, Senator said: No, I found the one I was looking for. It was a church history joke. Nevermind.
consiglieri Posted December 17, 2015 Author Posted December 17, 2015 1 hour ago, Lachoneus said: (1) Thomas S. Monson is the living prophet today. In his Fourteen Points, President Ezra Taft Benson said, "The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works." But Ezra Taft Benson is dead. So what he said no longer applies. 2
mnn727 Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 On 12/16/2015 at 7:08 PM, consiglieri said: Here is where I think the Proclamation goes too far, doctrinally speaking. What do you think? I think I'll follow the FP and Q of the 12 before I follow a message board poster 1
consiglieri Posted December 17, 2015 Author Posted December 17, 2015 1 minute ago, mnn727 said: I think I'll follow the FP and Q of the 12 before I follow a message board poster That gets to the root of the problem, as I see it. Mormons tend to be more concerned about who said something rather than whether the something said is correct. Just an observation. 3
Zakuska Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 43 minutes ago, Senator said: No, I found the one I was looking for. We aren't the Mormons you're looking for.
The Nehor Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 17 minutes ago, consiglieri said: That gets to the root of the problem, as I see it. Mormons tend to be more concerned about who said something rather than whether the something said is correct. Just an observation. And those who say things like this assume a doctrine of personal infallibility that makes both Mormons and Catholics stare. 3
Ahab Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 Yeah well my observation is that every time I have observed God say something either personally or through one of his prophets he has always been correct. Which is why I want to know what God has said.
Popular Post Hamba Tuhan Posted December 17, 2015 Popular Post Posted December 17, 2015 2 hours ago, KevinG said: I think you are perhaps overstating the popularity and frequency of the belief some Mormon's may have in genderlessness in the eternities. Which also makes me pause at many of your other claims. In this, I'm reminded of an experience I had one night at a YSA activity, with a man in our ward, informally ex-LDS, who had been brought that evening by his very active sister. At one point in the conversation, he said to to me, 'Remember how, on your mission', and then proceeded to relate something that not only have I never experienced personally but that I've only ever read about on message boards populated by disgruntled former members (or soon-to-be former members). He looked at me like he didn't believe me and tried to explain his memory/complaint in better detail so that I could agree that, yes, I did remember that from my mission. Except that I didn't. So he moved onto another complaint about missions -- again, one I'd never personally experienced/seen or heard about from anyone I know in the Church, but one that I'd encountered before in the disgruntled Mormon realm. And on it went. Not a single person there that night knew what this man was going on about, and he seemed increasingly frustrated that his litany of negative experiences didn't seem to resonate with any of us despite his beginning each statement with something like 'Remember how' or 'You know how'. I strongly suspected he returned home that night convinced that we were all being dishonest in order to 'protect' the Church. And I went home that night wondering if he'd really experienced all those things or if he had just adopted them into his personal narrative from having spent so much time hanging out in spaces where such things get brought up, celebrated, and then repeated until they're assumed to be both real and universal. 7
why me Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: But Ezra Taft Benson is dead. So what he said no longer applies. This is certainly not true, especially since the presidents of the church manual changes from year to year and ezra is this year. But in some cases, you would be correct.
consiglieri Posted December 17, 2015 Author Posted December 17, 2015 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: And those who say things like this assume a doctrine of personal infallibility that makes both Mormons and Catholics stare. Not personal infallibility, Nehor. Just personal responsibility.
consiglieri Posted December 17, 2015 Author Posted December 17, 2015 37 minutes ago, why me said: This is certainly not true, especially since the presidents of the church manual changes from year to year and ezra is this year. But in some cases, you would be correct. So even if a prophet is dead, his teachings continue to be of full force and effect so long as we are studying a manual about him? You're joking. Right? Would this also apply the year we studied Brigham Young . . . ?
consiglieri Posted December 17, 2015 Author Posted December 17, 2015 1 hour ago, Ahab said: Yeah well my observation is that every time I have observed God say something either personally or through one of his prophets he has always been correct. Like when Joseph Fielding Smith said man would never land on the moon?
Ahab Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 Are you one of those people who thinks a man is always speaking as a prophet just because he has spoken as one in the past? Even a man who is an apostle of our Lord or the presiding high priest of our Lord's church isn't always speaking as a prophet. You do understand that, don't you, Captain Poopie Pants? 1
Zakuska Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 10 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Like when Joseph Fielding Smith said man would never land on the moon? How about the six foot tall Quakers living on the sun and the moon?
hagoth7 Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 (edited) Quote Joseph Fielding Smith said they will be "neither man nor woman." How do you understand that to be anything other than genderless? They could be resurrected as young boys and young girls, and thereby be "neither man nor woman", but thereby still have gender. Such a resurrection would reconcile the Proclamation with the quote by Joseph Fielding Smith. So there isn't necessarily a conflict between the two. Edited December 18, 2015 by hagoth7
hagoth7 Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 Or, in other words, how some modern people view Cherubs (cherubim)
Ahab Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 That is how they look when they are young. The wings and wands are optional.
The Nehor Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: Not personal infallibility, Nehor. Just personal responsibility. Unless God has clandestinely given you the responsibility of judging prophets I do not see what responsibility has to do with it. 1
Rain Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 (edited) On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Buckeye said: Can Christ fully understand your femininity? Can He understand pregnancy, menopause, menstruation and all the other physical ways in which women are different from men? If not, the scriptures are in error when they say He has all power to succor His children. If so, then the next question is this: can men fully become as Christ? Again, the scriptures appear to say yes. But that would mean that men can eventually come to understand fully the female condition. Christ's gender is the ultimate downfall to gender essentialisms. Christ is the savior for all. Yet he is male. So therefore his maleness is not part of the salvation he brings. It's just another irrelevant attribute from his mortality - like his language, skin color, hair color, and so forth. I've thought about this for decades. I've had no problem with Him understanding my pains and suffering in general, but to be honest it is totally beyond me how he could understand my femaleness. It had never once yet worked for me. I'm not saying he couldn't understand it. I'm just saying I don't know how he could so maybe it is because it is different than suffering our pains (even female related) somehow? I don't know. Maybe I'm the only one who had been stuck on this. I'm also not so sure that this means we become like Christ that way. We become complete. We become joint heirs. We become begotten sons and daughters, but as far as I know none of us will atone for the sins of others so I really can't say how it all works. On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 2:11 PM, consiglieri said: Not a weird request at all, Steve. In fact, it is an important question. The way I read the Proclamation is that "gender" equals "sex." And by extension, in other places in the Proclamation, perhaps even "sexual orientation"? I don't read"gender" as "sex" in the Proclamation. I read it as more spirit/intelligence related than body related. 14 hours ago, consiglieri said: Some of the functions in the celestial body will not appear in the terrestrial body, neither in the telestial body, and the power of procreation will be removed. I take it that men and women will, in these kingdoms, be just what the so-called Christian world expects us all to be to be, neither man nor woman,merely immortal beings having received the resurrection. (Doc of Salv 2:287-288; emphasis added.) Here is a problem that I have in using this quote for what you are trying to prove: "I take it that". In other words, "This is how I understand it". He has been thinking about it and so far this is what he can make of it. He is not stating, "this is how it is. " He is not giving a firm conclusion on it. Edited December 18, 2015 by Rain 1
consiglieri Posted December 18, 2015 Author Posted December 18, 2015 18 hours ago, Ahab said: I said like that. The men will still look like men and the women will still look like women, externally, but they will not be able to reproduce themselves as spirit children just like most Christians don't believe they will. No (celestial) babies for them! Then how can the Proclamation be correct when it says gender is part of their purpose in the eternities?
consiglieri Posted December 18, 2015 Author Posted December 18, 2015 (edited) 18 hours ago, CV75 said: I've only heard a similar term once before, a few years ago, on this board. I can't imagine an added-upon body having any of its eternally-defining characteristics removed or imperfectly restored in the resurrection; that wouldn't constitute salvation even in the lowest kingdom of glory. P.S. Personally, I only use natural ingredients in my smoothies, which is a misnomer since they turn out a bit chunky. I think I just threw up a little in the back of my mouth. Edited December 18, 2015 by consiglieri
consiglieri Posted December 18, 2015 Author Posted December 18, 2015 18 hours ago, Calm said: Even if use of the term is a popular comment, it hardly means it is a popular belief. People may be mentioning it and using the derogatory label because they dismiss its validity, not because they accept it as revelation or even reasonable speculation. So now Joseph Fielding Smith was engaged in unreasonable speculation? Ouch!
consiglieri Posted December 18, 2015 Author Posted December 18, 2015 16 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: And I went home that night wondering if he'd really experienced all those things or if he had just adopted them into his personal narrative from having spent so much time hanging out in spaces where such things get brought up, celebrated, and then repeated until they're assumed to be both real and universal. Okay. So you're blaming me for being better versed in Joseph Fielding Smith than the other board members? How does that reflect badly on me? I provided the reference. Joseph Fielding Smith taught it. Bruce R. McConkie put it in "Doctrines of Salvation." And this is my fault somehow? Because most here never heard of it before?
Recommended Posts