consiglieri Posted December 18, 2015 Author Posted December 18, 2015 14 hours ago, The Nehor said: Unless God has clandestinely given you the responsibility of judging prophets I do not see what responsibility has to do with it. There is nothing clandestine about it, Nehor. If God has not given me the responsibility of judging prophets, to whom has he given it?
KevinG Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 26 minutes ago, consiglieri said: There is nothing clandestine about it, Nehor. If God has not given me the responsibility of judging prophets, to whom has he given it? He reserved that for Himself. Doctrine and Covenants 64 1
The Nehor Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: There is nothing clandestine about it, Nehor. If God has not given me the responsibility of judging prophets, to whom has he given it? Generally to himself but there is also a procedure in place to discipline members of the First Presidency so apostles have that responsibility as well in certain circumstances. While your enthusiasm to judge others is appreciated we do not need your services at this time. We will keep your resume on file in case our needs change. 2
rongo Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 consiglieri is right, though, that each individual judges the prophets for himself. What bothers him, though, is that there are people who judge that the prophets' actions and statements are in accordance with God's will. To him, that disqualifies such people as "thinking people." 1
Ahab Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: Then how can the Proclamation be correct when it says gender is part of their purpose in the eternities? Are you one of those people who thinks the only purpose for males or females is to make babies? Men have lots of characteristics by virtue of simply being men that don't necessitate that they make any babies, and females also have many purposes other than that which they are more suitable for because they are women. I think maybe you're getting hung up on those particular word choices in the Proclamation. Try: Gender is an essential characteristic for any person because any person can be only a male or a female, and being either a male or a female is essential to any person's purpose.
Avatar4321 Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 1 hour ago, rongo said: consiglieri is right, though, that each individual judges the prophets for himself. What bothers him, though, is that there are people who judge that the prophets' actions and statements are in accordance with God's will. To him, that disqualifies such people as "thinking people." well I have a hard time taking the opinion of who are thinking and not from someone who claims both A and Not A can both be true despite being mutually exclusive and then at the same time claiming anyone who doesn't agree with Not A isn't a thinking person.
rongo Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 His opinions aren't influential with me, either, but he's welcome to them. I wonder if he believes some of what he posts --- I think some of it is to get a reaction. Talk about "jumping the shark." Consiglieri misses the attention he feels he got from being what he considered to be an edgy, pot-stirring gospel doctrine teacher. So, he relives the glory days by trying to be an edgy, pot-stirring Mormon message board poster. 2
Calm Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 6 hours ago, consiglieri said: So now Joseph Fielding Smith was engaged in unreasonable speculation? Ouch! He once stated men would never reach the moon, iirc. I find that unreasonable speculation. I would be surprised if there has ever been a human being, besides Christ and he would depend on how much he knew growing into his mission, that has not engaged in it. Being a prophet doesn't suddenly change someone's thought processes into something inhuman.
Calm Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 6 hours ago, consiglieri said: Okay. So you're blaming me for being better versed in Joseph Fielding Smith than the other board members? I believe he was responding to the claim "[t]he majority of Mormons who think about the subject at all believe gender is not eternal for those who are not exalted."
Darren10 Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 On 12/16/2015 at 7:49 AM, JeremyOrbe-Smith said: I already posted this in the other thread, but just in case: Bad ideas: The emphasis on marriage being solely between a man and woman is not fair to homosexuals. I don't understand how gender can somehow be an "essential characteristic" of bodiless intelligences. There is an odd sort of reticence to mention Heavenly Mother openly, while most of the implied rhetorical stance focuses on Heavenly Father as the being to whom the term 'God' is referring to. The binary division into male and female doesn't acknowledge transgender/intersex individuals. While I think rituals and ordinances are socially important constructs which give us a symbolic way to express our covenants, I don't think such rituals in themselves are 'magic'; they are not what will allow us to return to God. I don't think Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth (see Genesis 1:27, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" - this reads to me as creating mankind in general, not two specific individuals, which is how Cain can have a non-incestuous wife, etc.) God's 'command' to be fruitful and multiply actually reads to me more as a blessing than an order; at any rate, I don't think most people need to be commanded to reproduce in the first place. The emphasis on procreation between males and females does not address invitro fertilization or infertile couples and adoption; if invitro fertilization is viable, and if infertile couples can adopt, then why shouldn't homosexuals do the same? There is no way for a husband to 'preside' over a family while simultaneously being an 'equal partner' to his wife; Paul's opinions, while 'scriptural', were written in the context of a harshly patriarchal society, are sexist and wrong, and are not, in my opinion, evidence of 'divine design'. I think both partners should be equally responsible for the 'nurture of their children'. Remember that the Book of Mormon explicitly teaches that the errors of men can become part of the scriptural record, and so whether or not something is 'doctrinal' or 'scriptural' is not the determining factor of whether or not it is true. Scripture cannot be used as an authority; the only authority is ultimately persuasion and truth, not a static and unchanging book of fallible words. Good ideas: All humans - male and female - are created in the image of God - though I'd prefer if they'd just openly say 'Gods', since we need to stop trying to look like the absolute monotheisms, and be more forward about recognizing the divine feminine. The sacredness of the physical body and the potential to become perfectly compassionate servants working to bring to pass the immorality and eternal life of all other coexisting intelligences as part of our 'divine destiny as heirs of eternal life'. The ability to maintain family relationships perpetuated beyond the grave. The recognition that sexuality - 'the means by which mortal life is [sometimes] created' - should be seen as divine, not some sort of bestial lesser-evil necessitated by the Fall. The sanctity of life and its importance. The solemn responsibility of a husband and wife to love and care for each other and for their children, provide for the physical and spiritual needs of the family, teach them to love and serve one another and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. The honoring of vows with complete fidelity. The recognition that individual circumstances may necessitate adaptation, and that extended families should lend support. The warning against abuse of spouse or offspring. ... The Proclamation is now twenty years old. It is, by its own admission, merely a Proclamation, not a binding Revelation. Nowhere is it stated that God dictated it or even inspired it; it is simply the best summary and interpretation that some well-meaning men (with no women in sight) could do at the time. Treating it as if it were timeless, when there have been so many advances in our understanding of the world since then, seems misguided to me. "The emphasis on marriage being solely between a man and woman is not fair to homosexuals." - So what? It's not fair to umarried people as well. By restored doctrine we know that martial sealings are absolutely essential for exaltation. We also know that these sealings are for man and woman, *exclusively*. I do not recall any time in recorded history that God is concerned of being "unfair" to those who choose not to follow his commands/ instructions. "I don't understand how gender can somehow be an "essential characteristic" of bodiless intelligences." - 'Bodiless intelligence'. There's no such thing as 'bodiless intelligences' beyond a pre-creation "time" of existence" (and, by reason, a post resurrection / final judgment continuation of the Father's work, but I really do not want to get into that at this time). Even then I cannot help to conclude that gender was essential to our characteristic as a bodiless intelligence. We do know that Jesus was created "like unto God" and thus I conclude He was male as an intelligence. So far as the doctrines we do have, it is very safe to conclude that our gender empowers us to 'become God". In other words, our female gender, applied to all females, empowers us to become God and our male gender, applied to all males, empowers us to become God. Gender is insurmountably important to our eternal / limitless progression. "The binary division into male and female doesn't acknowledge transgender/intersex individuals." - Probably because neither Heavenly Father, nor Heavenly mother are transgendered. Also probably because there will ne no such thing as transgendered beings in the eternities. "...I don't think such rituals in themselves are 'magic'' - You're in luck. No believing Mormon thinks of them as "magic". "Sacred"? Yes. "essential"? Yes. "Magic"? Again, NO!!! "they are not what will allow us to return to God" - Why then do we have them? exaltation is where they lead, without exaltation, these rituals are really useless. "I don't think Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth" - Historically-speaking, there's no reason you have to believe any such thing. Theologically, according to official doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints, this is *exactly* what is declared as an absolute truth. beyond that, our covenants for exaltation rely heavily upon the Adam and Eve narrative in order to be administered. "The emphasis on procreation between males and females does not address invitro fertilization or infertile couples and adoption; if invitro fertilization is viable, and if infertile couples can adopt, then why shouldn't homosexuals do the same?" - The official position is that male and female are to reproduce under the covenant of marriage. Even if "invitro" fertilization is performed on a practicing homosexual, it still *must* include male and female. "There is no way for a husband to 'preside' over a family while simultaneously being an 'equal partner' to his wife; Paul's opinions, while 'scriptural', were written in the context of a harshly patriarchal society, are sexist and wrong, and are not, in my opinion, evidence of 'divine design'." - Not possible? Isn't Jesus Christ our LORD and King? Are we not equal participants in His kingdom on earth? if so, are not ward members co-equal participants in a ward as wit their presiding bishop? I certainly hope so. Is not His purpose to make us all co-equal partners in His eternal kingdom with the Father? The idea that Paul was sexist is nothing new. It's ultimately false and such a view is laden with human misunderstandings: individual and societal. "All humans - male and female - are created in the image of God - though I'd prefer if they'd just openly say 'Gods', since we need to stop trying to look like the absolute monotheisms" - Mormons are openly what I call "biblical monotheists', not worldly monotheists. The difference is that biblical monotheism gives supremacy to the Father over all, even over the Son and Holy Spirit. Worldly monotheism is perhaps what you refer to as "absolute monotheists". That is, there being only one numeric God. Mormons fully embrace the former and fully reject the Trinitarian view of the latter. "and be more forward about recognizing the divine feminine" - Mormons are the most forwarded people in existence of "divine feminism'. not only do they believe in a Heavenly mother but believe that all females may "become God". "The recognition that sexuality - 'the means by which mortal life is [sometimes] created' - should be seen as divine, not some sort of bestial lesser-evil necessitated by the Fall.' - Godo grief, Mormons do NOT, I repeat, do NOT believe sexuality as "something bestial" as a result of the Fall. Non Mormons do, but not Mormons. " "The Proclamation is now twenty years old. It is, by its own admission, merely a Proclamation, not a binding Revelation." - The Proclamation is fully called, "A Proclamation to the World'. It's an official "Creed" if you will from the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints. It was sent to the sitting President of the United States, Bill Clinton, and literally declared to the entire world. It is very much binding as to the official beliefs of the LDS Church and therefore its faithful members. As it stands, I view it as a document wit ha lot of authority behind it.
consiglieri Posted December 18, 2015 Author Posted December 18, 2015 5 hours ago, rongo said: consiglieri is right, though, that each individual judges the prophets for himself. What bothers him, though, is that there are people who judge that the prophets' actions and statements are in accordance with God's will. To him, that disqualifies such people as "thinking people." I agree with your first proposition, Rongo, but not with your second. It does not bother me at all that there are people who judge prophetic statements with which I disagree as being in accordance with God's will. Nor does that make me think such people do not think.
consiglieri Posted December 18, 2015 Author Posted December 18, 2015 4 hours ago, Ahab said: Men have lots of characteristics by virtue of simply being men that don't necessitate that they make any babies, and females also have many purposes other than that which they are more suitable for because they are women. That may be one of the most sexist statements I have ever read, Ahab. What specific characteristics are you thinking of that men have simply by being men? And what specific characteristics are you thinking of that women have simply by being women?
Darren10 Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 5 hours ago, The Nehor said: Generally to himself but there is also a procedure in place to discipline members of the First Presidency so apostles have that responsibility as well in certain circumstances. While your enthusiasm to judge others is appreciated we do not need your services at this time. We will keep your resume on file in case our needs change. PHEW!!! I was getting worried God reserved the right to judge prophets to bitter ex-Mormons.
consiglieri Posted December 18, 2015 Author Posted December 18, 2015 4 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: well I have a hard time taking the opinion of who are thinking and not from someone who claims both A and Not A can both be true despite being mutually exclusive and then at the same time claiming anyone who doesn't agree with Not A isn't a thinking person. I never said the last part. But it is good to see somebody took Rongo's bait.
consiglieri Posted December 18, 2015 Author Posted December 18, 2015 4 hours ago, rongo said: His opinions aren't influential with me, either, but he's welcome to them. I wonder if he believes some of what he posts --- I think some of it is to get a reaction. Talk about "jumping the shark." Consiglieri misses the attention he feels he got from being what he considered to be an edgy, pot-stirring gospel doctrine teacher. So, he relives the glory days by trying to be an edgy, pot-stirring Mormon message board poster. Yawn.
consiglieri Posted December 18, 2015 Author Posted December 18, 2015 6 hours ago, KevinG said: He reserved that for Himself. Doctrine and Covenants 64 I am talking about the individual's responsibility to judge whether a person is a prophet, or perhaps more specifically, speaking as a prophet. In other words, by what means do we identify revelation? By who said it, or by an individual judging process? It must be individual. Or we have given away our agency. At least, that's what makes sense to me.
consiglieri Posted December 18, 2015 Author Posted December 18, 2015 30 minutes ago, Calm said: He once stated men would never reach the moon, iirc. I find that unreasonable speculation. I would be surprised if there has ever been a human being, besides Christ and he would depend on how much he knew growing into his mission, that has not engaged in it. Being a prophet doesn't suddenly change someone's thought processes into something inhuman. Then how can we just take their word for anything they say? As a side-note, Jesus said he would be coming back in the lifetime of his disciples, so maybe he wasn't immune from the whole speculation thing, either.
CV75 Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 9 minutes ago, consiglieri said: As a side-note, Jesus said he would be coming back in the lifetime of his disciples, so maybe he wasn't immune from the whole speculation thing, either. He wasn't including Judas... He came back to the rest the first day of the week after He died.
consiglieri Posted December 18, 2015 Author Posted December 18, 2015 4 minutes ago, CV75 said: He wasn't including Judas... He came back to the rest the first day of the week after He died. I think you are kidding here. Mark 13 and Matt 24 relate Jesus's anticipated second coming before everybody then alive had passed away. But I think you already know that. Which makes me wonder why you are attempting so limp a justification. Like I said, you are probably just kidding.
Ahab Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 22 minutes ago, consiglieri said: That may be one of the most sexist statements I have ever read, Ahab. What specific characteristics are you thinking of that men have simply by being men? And what specific characteristics are you thinking of that women have simply by being women? To me it's just the kinds of things I've noticed that makes women different than men, generally, other than their different private parts. Been married long without noticing, have you?
Calm Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 34 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Then how can we just take their word for anything they say? I have never felt any need to ever do that, so I can't answer your question.
consiglieri Posted December 18, 2015 Author Posted December 18, 2015 4 minutes ago, Calm said: I have never felt any need to ever do that, so I can't answer your question. Good for you! And I mean that most sincerely.
CV75 Posted December 19, 2015 Posted December 19, 2015 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: I think you are kidding here. Mark 13 and Matt 24 relate Jesus's anticipated second coming before everybody then alive had passed away. But I think you already know that. Which makes me wonder why you are attempting so limp a justification. Like I said, you are probably just kidding. I'm kidding. I don't think the disciples understood His various references to His resurrection, which could have reasonably been anticipated to have occurred within their lifetimes, since eventually He indicated it would happen only three days after His imminent death. For a discussion of those chapters, and of how He was not describing His Millennial, "Second" Coming to occur in the disciples' lifetime, see https://www.lds.org/manual/new-testament-student-manual/introduction-to-matthew/chapter-8?lang=eng and the Inspired Version/JST. My take is that much of what He said was concerning the Jews (JST verse 21) and "for the elect's sake," and is given to the disciples to witness to these parties (to their contemporaries through preaching and epistles, and to future audiences through scripture and post-mortal ministry such as John) as messengers, hence His use of the second person plural pronoun (unless that was just how the record and translation came out). But we digress... I'll refer to back my previous remarks about the Proclamation.
Darren10 Posted December 19, 2015 Posted December 19, 2015 4 hours ago, consiglieri said: I am talking about the individual's responsibility to judge whether a person is a prophet, or perhaps more specifically, speaking as a prophet. In other words, by what means do we identify revelation? By who said it, or by an individual judging process? It must be individual. Or we have given away our agency. At least, that's what makes sense to me. We judge the, by taking our concerns to God.
mfbukowski Posted December 19, 2015 Posted December 19, 2015 (edited) Never mind Edited December 19, 2015 by mfbukowski
Recommended Posts