Members who reject the Family Proclamation

[Mystery Meat]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

Oh for heaven's sake.

juliann, don't you think it is telling that so many of us (who are otherwise very intelligent) can't seem to figure out what you want? Either its an all of us problem or a one of you problem.

[juliann]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Do you have a statement from a General Authority stating that women will not be expected to live polygamy?  

I know that's currently assumed (which contradicts early leader's statements), but I think those are the quotes Juliann is looking for here.

We have modern quotes saying it is not doctrine and such. I appreciate those who are bringing in more.

But for those who dismiss or explain away modern quotes, they need  to provide their own quotes that correct what Hinckley, Ballard, and Oaks have said.

To date, no one has. Yet there is extraordinary anger because I won't change my position without that.  That might be worth exploring at some point.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

6 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

juliann, don't you think it is telling that so many of us (who are otherwise very intelligent) can't seem to figure out what you want? Either its an all of us problem or a one of you problem.

 

 

I am asking for sources correcting the sources I have provided. I have been given pages of opinions and speeches instead.  Is that understandable?

(edited to add that a discussion was expected, but it does need to include sources. So I have retreated to a CFR.)

Edited February 18, 2016 by juliann

[Mystery Meat]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

I am asking for sources correcting the sources I have provided. I have been given pages of opinions and speeches instead.  Is that understandable?

(edited to add that a discussion was expected, but it does need to include sources. So I have retreated to a CFR.)

You have not provided any sources that back up your positions though.

Truth be told, I no longer know what your positions are. Despite multiple attempts to request clarification from you, nothing more has been provided.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Mystery Meat

[juliann]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

 

 

No, you just don't value Hinckley, Oaks, and Ballard's statements. But it is useful to see the evasions, MM. 

May you accumulate many more in my absence....

 

 

[Mystery Meat]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

 

No, you just don't value Hinckley, Oaks, and Ballard's statements. But it is useful to see the evasions, MM. 

May you accumulate many more in my absence....

 

 

Oh brother. I dont value them for what you seem to think they say (which, again, I no longer know what you want them to say).

Are you saying that the quotes you have provided from them show that:

1- 19c polygamy was not sanctioned by God?

2- Polygamy, practiced by mortals, today is not sanctioned by God (I agree with this)?

3- There will be no polygamy in the eternities?

Help understanding your perspective would be valued.

[smac97]

Delete.

Edited February 18, 2016 by smac97

[juliann]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

 That I have answered most of those questions just today leads me to believe that you don't want my opinion at all. You said you were going to lead the thread. You called me enough names to be banned. I have been gracious enough to not report you. But I do expect you to CFR with something that overrules what Hinckley, Oaks and Ballard actually said. Not what you want to add to what they said. And if you can't, you really do need to leave the thread.

My computer time is done for the day.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

 That I have answered most of those questions just today leads me to believe that you don't want my opinion at all. You said you were going to lead the thread. You called me enough names to be banned. I have been gracious enough to not report you. But I do expect you to CFR with something that overrules what Hinckley, Oaks and Ballard actually said. Not what you want to add to what they said. And if you can't, you really do need to leave the thread.

My computer time is done for the day.

I'll assume this is directed at someone else.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

This thread is just really weird.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

This thread is just really weird.

Yeah.  About time to wrap it up, I think.

-Smac

[Rain]

Juliann - honestly, I have been trying to figure out just what you are looking for as well. I know sources and I know they need to be modern, but I go fuzzy from there. I understand why this is important to you and why this frustrates you. I thought smac's post a page or two back about clarifying what you meant by "doctrine" might be a good starting point. Perhaps when you come back tomorrow you would read through it and see if there is something you can clarify so we can help you?

And everyone, let's get away from the name calling please. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by Rain

[Mystery Meat]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

 That I have answered most of those questions just today leads me to believe that you don't want my opinion at all. You said you were going to lead the thread. You called me enough names to be banned. I have been gracious enough to not report you. But I do expect you to CFR with something that overrules what Hinckley, Oaks and Ballard actually said. Not what you want to add to what they said. And if you can't, you really do need to leave the thread.

My computer time is done for the day.

Juliann, the problem is none of those quotes say anything about whether or not there will be polygamy in the next life (which seems to be at the heart of this conversation) at least not definitively. So it is very disingenuous for you to say others quotes don't count, when the quotes you have provided don't show with any measure of certainty what you seem to think yours do.

As far as my behavior in this thread, I think the labels that have been attached to you by me are entirely appropriate. Your behavior has been ugly. It has been arrogant. It has been condescending, rude and obtuse. I called you out for it. You publicly and subtly attacked Smac for a private conversation that none of us have the ability to verify. Regardless, you planted the seed. It was entirely unfair and uncalled for. You continually ask more from other participants than you are willing to give. Its very shameful and then you have the audacity to try and shame me for pointing it out. I wont be bullied. 

[Mystery Meat]

2 minutes ago, Rain said:

Juliann - honestly, I have been trying to figure out just what you are looking for as well. I know sources and I know they need to be modern, but I go fuzzy from there. I understand why this is important to you and why this frust rates you. I thought smac's post a page or two back about clarifying what you meant by "doctrine" might be a good starting point. Perhaps when you come back tomorrow you would read through it and see if there is something you can clarify so we can help you?

And everyone, let's get away from the name calling please. 

I stand by my posts. I don't think any of what I have done is name calling. I think her actions have warranted criticism in this thread. I have called her out for it. I have used strong words and labels to criticize her. I don't think any of those labels are unfair or unwarranted.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Rain said:

Juliann - honestly, I have been trying to figure out just what you are looking for as well. I know sources and I know they need to be modern, but I go fuzzy from there. I understand why this is important to you and why this frust rates you. I thought smac's post a page or two back about clarifying what you meant by "doctrine" might be a good starting point. Perhaps when you come back tomorrow you would read through it and see if there is something you can clarify so we can help you?

And everyone, let's get away from the name calling please. 

Here's the post from me which Rain is referencing.  And I agree with her about the namecalling.  It's not necessary.  It's not helpful.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

3 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

You are intellectually dishonest. 

 

3 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

I think what is so upsetting about this thread is the fact that I held you in high regard. Now, it is clear that you are nothing more than a hypocrite. I am reminded of this piece you and Cal wrote not too long ago (http://blog.fairmormon.org/2014/03/26/these-are-our-sisters/) in which you warned against mischaracterizing. The fact that you continue to make claims like the one above, is blatant mischaracterizing, ignore posts and is downright rude (which is ironic, considering the thread last week in which you said that men tend to silence women in conversation) to those who disagree with you, even to the point of making accusations about character that no one can substantiate. Any credibility you had with me is gone. I don't care if the mods think I have crossed a line with this post. I think you have crossed plenty. I find your behavior here hypocritical, ugly and wanting in personal integrity and character.

 

3 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

Don't bother she is too busy wresting the prophets words to suit her own needs.

 

1 hour ago, Mystery Meat said:

Show me yours and I will show you mine.

 

8 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Juliann, the problem is none of those quotes say anything about whether or not there will be polygamy in the next life (which seems to be at the heart of this conversation) at least not definitively. So it is very disingenuous for you to say others quotes don't count, when the quotes you have provided don't show with any measure of certainty what you seem to think yours do.

As far as my behavior in this thread, I think the labels that have been attached to you by me are entirely appropriate. Your behavior has been ugly. It has been arrogant. It has been condescending, rude and obtuse. I called you out for it. You publicly and subtly attacked Smac for a private conversation that none of us have the ability to verify. Regardless, you planted the seed. It was entirely unfair and uncalled for. You continually ask more from other participants than you are willing to give. Its very shameful and then you have the audacity to try and shame me for pointing it out. I wont be bullied. 

Ummm, wow.  Do you really believe this is an effective argument method in this context (discussions of doctrinal interpretation), or has this somehow become personal for you?  I ask because, well...wow.

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I stand by my posts. I don't think any of what I have done is name calling. I think her actions have warranted criticism in this thread. I have called her out for it. I have used strong words and labels to criticize her. I don't think any of those labels are unfair or unwarranted.

Publicly attacking her character and insulting her is not warranted.  If we are going to "call" each other out, let's stick with the arguments presented, and abstain from the public and adverse critiques of character.

I say this with the recognition that I too sometimes behave inappropriately on this board.  Let's all take a breather and see if we can re-gain some civility and decorum.  Cool?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Mystery Meat said:

juliann, don't you think it is telling that so many of us (who are otherwise very intelligent) can't seem to figure out what you want? Either its an all of us problem or a one of you problem.

But it is not an "all of us" situation.  I see a number of people who get what Juliann has said (Sky, blue dreams, Rain--though apparently she is not getting that she is getting it, lol, probably ALarson off the top of my head to begin with, I don't count myself because I have had many conversations elsewhere) so it would seem to be possible.  These all and more seem to me to be heading in the right direction even if not all are there yet...I do think Sky nailed it and I think Bluedreams did as well though she added her own personal version with it so I wouldn't use her post to substitute for Juliann though I feel I could use Sky's. Could Juliann be clearer?  That is a given for all of us, language can always be improved (in fact I think that is one of the main reasons Juliann wants to have this discussion, to explore the best language available to discuss it).  However, I think the main problem with those who feel like they are missing what she is getting at is that there is too much reading into what she is saying; there is a lot of history on the subject and it is hard to divorce this conversation from all of those past discussions and experiences, hard to get out of the habit of thinking about the topic in certain ways (notice how so many, including myself, are driven to talking about the past when that is not applicable to what Juliann is trying to focus on, for example).

It is all very well to point to "scripture" (meaning scripture revealed in the past and currently canonized), but we consider what our current prophets say to be living scripture and continuing revelation so it is logical and valid imo in the framework of LDS discussion to  focus on what is currently said and look at that context just as at times it is logical and valid to pull the past in and look at development of ideas and such.  Every discussion doesn't have to be a large, big picture one.  If that were all the discussions we were having, then nothing would ever get done.  It is by narrowing topics done to workable limits that we can come up with actionable ideas.  If one wants to focus on current ideas and not how we got there, then pointing to the past isn't necessary imo (I don't need to know the history of SS to discuss how to call a particular person to a teaching position and how to support her in that calling, for example; I do need to be aware of current policies and practices to ensure that someone appropriate is called and is appropriately supported).  Certainly that narrow focus cannot be the only discussion ever had about the topic, but it can be one of the discussions.  Think of it as a dissection where one deals with one idea at a time rather than attempting to view the whole body at once because there would be too much confusing and distracting information that makes it impossible to tease out the details of what is happening with one organ and then as one collects information about various organs, then being able to put all it into a coherent whole.

And I don't think we can strip the habits of thought just through sheer will, if I knew what could help I would say it.  But at least one thing could be done and that is to not assume that one is reading something correctly if it doesn't make sense to one.  One has to be open to the idea one is wrong in one's approach before one can actually change that approach.  

Edited February 18, 2016 by Calm

[deli_llama]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Let's all take a breather and see if we can re-gain some civility and decorum.  Cool?

Thumbs up for civility. it seems like the noise is complicating the discussion. I know I am confused now. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I believe Juliann is a strong feminist and is very anti polygamy and wants us all to be on her side.

You are misreading her.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I used poor word usage, I take part of the blame for using an anti Mormon title.  

Language is powerful and we are like two year olds trying to operate a power saw with it.

[VideoGameJunkie]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

You are misreading her.

Well that's how it's been perceived by me in this thread.

[provoman]

Juliann you are not quoting Oaks in the proper context. It is disappointed that for your own arguments context you act as though context is not relevant, but you hold others to a different standard.

 

Elder Oaks said he would not speak concerning polygamy in Heaven; you seem all to willing to ingnote that fact to prop up your position.

 

 

Edited February 18, 2016 by provoman

[ksfisher]

38 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Well that's how it's been perceived by me in this thread.

Perceptions are often times deceiving.  Many times it's difficult to convey tone and emotions, which are easier to read in person, in written form.  It's easy to read things into what's written here, but one should be very careful or it may come back to bite you.

I very much admire all those on this board who write so well.

Edited February 19, 2016 by ksfisher
Fixed spelling so that I didn't sound like Elmer Fudd

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

 

No, you just don't value Hinckley, Oaks, and Ballard's statements. But it is useful to see the evasions, MM. 

May you accumulate many more in my absence....

 

 

What?

I thought we all understood that everyone gets to articulate their own position around here. Is that a rule that only applies to some and not to others?

To be frank, when I saw the title of the thread, I thought it might be discussing the attempts to explain away the Proclamation offered by those who are trying to straddle the gulf between LDS doctrine and same sex "marriage."

I was rather surprised to see that it was a baseless accusation levelled at those who don't accept Juliann's rather strained interpretation vis-à-vis polygamy.

Most Latter-day Saints I've ever discussed the subject with wholeheartedly support the Proclamation. They also believe that plural marriage will happen in the Celestial Kingdom.

And while we're on the subject of accusations: pointing out that President Hinckley was giving a specific answer to a specific question about a specific contemporary practice is in nowise attempting to "explain away" his words. It is simply wrong to claim that it is.