Members who reject the Family Proclamation

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

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

You can trust Calm.  As between A) a perception of X's personality formed by reading online posts, and B) Calm vouching for X in a way that conflicts with your perception of X, you can rely on the latter.  Every time.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Perhaps pointing to another situation which leaves many members feeling untethered to the Church and at times even to the Gospel might help.

There is a very common approach in my experience to respond to homosexuals who state they can't conceive of how they could be happily married to women in the eternities if they live worthily for exaltation and accept the Atonement, etc. with essentially saying 'God will change your feelings no matter how deep and intense you think they are so that instead of connecting with the same sex intimately, you will prefer to connect with the opposite sex on that level and any attraction to your own sex will be removed'.  Perhaps that works to comfort some, but I have heard many express that they see that as such a fundamental change they would no longer be themselves in any true sense, but another person.   And some of the gays who are told this have expressed the preference to cease to exist rather than be changed in such a way as it would be a travesty for them to be walking around with what they see possesed by a different spirit in their body, their own true, eternal identity destroyed as if it never existed.

And if that example has too much baggage for you, I will provide two more to convey the idea.  Think of a robot who is programmed to be a caregiver who is then when no longer needed in that slot taken back to the factory, the unique aspects that made it able to be effective in its work are erased and the programing is changed to what is currently needed, let us say filing work...is the robot the same robot or is it a different one?  Depending on your POV, which is most important---the physical structure or the mental one, you will get a different answer.

Or think of a person who is a loving, committed wife and mother who experiences brain surgery that necessitates brain damage that leaves her not only with no memory of how she felt as loving wife and mother, but with no desire to be a loving wife and mother so she will not seek out the experiences that can give her that relationship again nor will her mental images of experiencing that life convey any feelings of joy or love.  She will simply not care about what was once the most beautiful part of her being as she saw it. (Now LDS would say that her spirit is the same and the body would be healed, but I am using this as an analogy, not theology, so please just take the immediate mortal experience for the thought).  Would that woman ever in your estimation choose to live that way because she wanted to or even look forward to the experience or instead do you think that being informed of the change that was coming upon her, would she look on it in horror and disgust and sorrow at the coming loss?  Would she anticipate her future life as meaningful as her current one, let alone more meaningful and glorious?

Many women who are troubled by the possibility of plural marriage in their lives are reassured that all will be worked out by the Lord, that whatever their situation is they will be happy.  But they can't be told what that situation is and from what is taught elsewhere (and may or may not be doctrine) they get the idea that there is a possibility that the situation they will be happy with is being one of the many wives of one man, whether it is their current husband or someone that may be a total stranger to them in the here and now.  And they are not reassured by this because they can't imagine how they could be happy as one wife of many, thus to be happy in that situation only means to them they won't be themselves, some fundamental part of their soul must be removed like a lobotomy.  It won't therefore be actually them making that choice, but some strange aberration, something they feel is an abomination, a twisting of themselves into something they are not.  And if God is willing to do that to them so that heaven runs on the lines that he commands, then it must be because God doesn't value them for who they are.  

Women who feel this way find it very difficult in my experience to see comfort in the teachings of the Gospel, both in the here and now and in future promises.

Can you imagine being told that you will be changed into something unrecognizable to your Self not because that is what you want to become, but because that is what you must become in order to conform to God's Will?  Is there someone out there who that appeals to?  It certainly doesn't to me.  Thankfully I don't believe that, in part because I ignore many of the teachings (long past and not so long past) that have become attached to the idea of plural marriage and the implications of those teachings for women, teachings that I don't see as lasting eternal principles but understandings of good intentioned but fundamentally wrong individuals (both men and women) much like happened with the Priesthood ban and I don't see them as lasting eternal principles because I don't see evidence that they are nor do I see them as congruent with the eternal principles I have faith in.

[ttribe]

^^^^[Standing Ovation]

[Calm]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

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

Well then, try to look at it in a new way than just keeping seeing what she is doing as your current perception.

For example, could it be possible given the quotes she gave that what President Hinckley said at the funeral you refer to is his personal belief and hope, but he recognizes that doctrinally speaking it is not there?  Perhaps like how President McKay supported the Priesthood Ban as a policy even though he apparently believed it didn't have a doctrinal foundation.

[provoman]

Calm, to your long post on this page, should we ignore scripture and misrepresent statements to contort them into palpable position so someone is not discomforted by a Doctrine?

 

A real problem with this discussion is the selective use of "prophet said it therefore it is" (how many Prophets said the Priesthood ban was Doctrine and from God, I doubt the OP agrees with those Prophets and will dismiss their statements)

I mentioned that Hinckley said caffeine ciolates the Word Of Wisdom. 

The OP positions and condemnation of fellow members rests on "A Prophet said it therefore if you do not agree you are following the Prophets". 

 

 

Edited February 19, 2016 by provoman

[VideoGameJunkie]

6 minutes ago, provoman said:

Calm, to your long post on this page, should we ignore scripture and misrepresent statements to contort them into palpable position so someone is not discomforted by a Doctrine?

 

A real problem with this discussion is the selective use of "prophet said it therefore it is" (how many Prophets said the Priesthood ban was Doctrine and from God, I doubt the OP agrees with those Prophets and will dismiss their statements)

I mentioned that Hinckley said caffeine ciolates the Word Of Wisdom. 

The OP positions and condemnation of fellow members rests on "A Prophet said it therefore if you do not agree you are following the Prophets". 

 

 

I agree. As someone who is single I always get upset when I hear only married couples will be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom. That doctrine upsets a lot of single people like me.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

should we ignore scripture and misrepresent statements to contort them into palpable position so someone is not discomforted by a Doctrine?

What is contortion is one of the things being debated as well as what is scripture.  Of course I say no to your question, but that pretty much only means I don't think you should contort it because I definitely don't think I am contorting anything and I believe I am paying very close attention to scripture as well (as is Juilann imo).  I assume you feel the same way.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Calm

[Sky]

I thought it might be useful to point this out.  

From the Introduction in the manual Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith:    

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/introduction?lang=eng

Quote

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.

 

 

[Sky]

Juliann is simply saying that there is no expectation that we (meaning us today) will be required to live polygamy in the next life.  There are no statements from current or recent Church leaders saying that. 

That is what I think she is saying.  She can correct me if I'm misreading her.   

[VideoGameJunkie]

1 minute ago, Sky said:

Juliann is simply saying that there is no expectation that we (meaning us today) will be required to live polygamy in the next life.  There are no statements from current or recent Church leaders saying that. 

That is what I think she is saying.  She can correct me if I'm misreading her.   

We will not be required to live polygamy in the next life, but people like Russell M Nelson and Oaks will be living it in the next life, otherwise temple sealings have no worth or importance.

[JulieM]

54 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

We will not be required to live polygamy in the next life, but people like Russell M Nelson and Oaks will be living it in the next life, otherwise temple sealings have no worth or importance.

Only if they all choose to live it.  The sealings are in place but each person has a choice.  Nothing will be forced.

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Only if they all choose to live it.  The sealings are in place but each person has a choice.  Nothing will be forced.

One could argue they've already chosen.
At some point, we have to live with our choices and live up to our covenants.

[mtomm]

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

One could argue they've already chosen.
At some point, we have to live with our choices and live up to our covenants.

But the other spouse, who didn't enter into the sealing but maybe just had the unfortunate problem of dying, must also have a choice. So they may or not be depending on someone else's choice. 

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, mtomm said:

But the other spouse, who didn't enter into the sealing but maybe just had the unfortunate problem of dying, must also have a choice. So they may or not be depending on someone else's choice. 

Ohhh, the "I didn't sign up for this and would rather be a ministering angel" situation.
I think there will be as many of those as we might think.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

You can trust Calm.  As between A) a perception of X's personality formed by reading online posts, and B) Calm vouching for X in a way that conflicts with your perception of X, you can rely on the latter.  Every time.

Thanks,

-Smac

  Man, I wish my family was as confident in my opinion.  

I have the advantage of knowing Juliann in 'real life' and having endless conversations with her.  In fact, she may be the person I talk to the most beside my husband, daughter and mom at this point in my life.  And I think that is great.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Sky said:

Juliann is simply saying that there is no expectation that we (meaning us today) will be required to live polygamy in the next life.  There are no statements from current or recent Church leaders saying that. 

That is what I think she is saying.  She can correct me if I'm misreading her.   

Spot on again imo.  We should just let you talk.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Perhaps pointing to another situation which leaves many members feeling untethered to the Church and at times even to the Gospel might help.

There is a very common approach in my experience to respond to homosexuals who state they can't conceive of how they could be happily married to women in the eternities if they live worthily for exaltation and accept the Atonement, etc. with essentially saying 'God will change your feelings no matter how deep and intense you think they are so that instead of connecting with the same sex intimately, you will prefer to connect with the opposite sex on that level and any attraction to your own sex will be removed'.  Perhaps that works to comfort some, but I have heard many express that they see that as such a fundamental change they would no longer be themselves in any true sense, but another person.   And some of the gays who are told this have expressed the preference to cease to exist rather than be changed in such a way as it would be a travesty for them to be walking around with what they see possesed by a different spirit in their body, their own true, eternal identity destroyed as if it never existed.

And if that example has too much baggage for you, I will provide two more to convey the idea.  Think of a robot who is programmed to be a caregiver who is then when no longer needed in that slot taken back to the factory, the unique aspects that made it able to be effective in its work are erased and the programing is changed to what is currently needed, let us say filing work...is the robot the same robot or is it a different one?  Depending on your POV, which is most important---the physical structure or the mental one, you will get a different answer.

Or think of a person who is a loving, committed wife and mother who experiences brain surgery that necessitates brain damage that leaves her not only with no memory of how she felt as loving wife and mother, but with no desire to be a loving wife and mother so she will not seek out the experiences that can give her that relationship again nor will her mental images of experiencing that life convey any feelings of joy or love.  She will simply not care about what was once the most beautiful part of her being as she saw it. (Now LDS would say that her spirit is the same and the body would be healed, but I am using this as an analogy, not theology, so please just take the immediate mortal experience for the thought).  Would that woman ever in your estimation choose to live that way because she wanted to or even look forward to the experience or instead do you think that being informed of the change that was coming upon her, would she look on it in horror and disgust and sorrow at the coming loss?  Would she anticipate her future life as meaningful as her current one, let alone more meaningful and glorious?

Many women who are troubled by the possibility of plural marriage in their lives are reassured that all will be worked out by the Lord, that whatever their situation is they will be happy.  But they can't be told what that situation is and from what is taught elsewhere (and may or may not be doctrine) they get the idea that there is a possibility that the situation they will be happy with is being one of the many wives of one man, whether it is their current husband or someone that may be a total stranger to them in the here and now.  And they are not reassured by this because they can't imagine how they could be happy as one wife of many, thus to be happy in that situation only means to them they won't be themselves, some fundamental part of their soul must be removed like a lobotomy.  It won't therefore be actually them making that choice, but some strange aberration, something they feel is an abomination, a twisting of themselves into something they are not.  And if God is willing to do that to them so that heaven runs on the lines that he commands, then it must be because God doesn't value them for who they are.  

Women who feel this way find it very difficult in my experience to see comfort in the teachings of the Gospel, both in the here and now and in future promises.

Can you imagine being told that you will be changed into something unrecognizable to your Self not because that is what you want to become, but because that is what you must become in order to conform to God's Will?  Is there someone out there who that appeals to?  It certainly doesn't to me.  Thankfully I don't believe that, in part because I ignore many of the teachings (long past and not so long past) that have become attached to the idea of plural marriage and the implications of those teachings for women, teachings that I don't see as lasting eternal principles but understandings of good intentioned but fundamentally wrong individuals (both men and women) much like happened with the Priesthood ban and I don't see them as lasting eternal principles because I don't see evidence that they are nor do I see them as congruent with the eternal principles I have faith in.

This concern is a fundamental lack of trust in God. I am not saying it makes the person horrible but what you describe is what everyone has to do to some extent to be exalted. Parts of us will be cut off. If the hand offends thee cut it off. There are parts of me, parts that seem fundamental, that God intends for the scrap heap. I usually have enough faith when going through this process to trust that God will only cut away what is necessary and in the end I will be made whole in a way I have never known. Not a carbon copy of another but singularly joyously me.

It is one of the divine paradoxes. If you want to live you must first die. If you want to be made whole let God perform surgery. If you want to be you give yourself up to God without reservation to mold you as he will. 

The price for holding onto yourself is eternal death. The prize for giving yourself up os eternal life as yourself.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

One could argue they've already chosen.
At some point, we have to live with our choices and live up to our covenants.

"They" have not all chosen polygamy (not his first wife).  

And, all parties involved will still have a choice after this life.  If they don't want to live polygamy for an eternity, they will not be forced to do so.  At least, that's what I believe.

Edited February 19, 2016 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

"They" have not all chosen polygamy (not his first wife).  

D&C 132:52, 64-65

Oh, and the covenant of the marriage sealing ceremony may also apply here.

Edited February 19, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

Quote

It is one of the divine paradoxes. If you want to live you must first die. If you want to be made whole let God perform surgery. If you want to be you give yourself up to God without reservation to mold you as he will. 

I agree....at least intellectually.  I have taken the leap of trust in a lot of ways but I haven't yet been able to lay myself completely into God's grasp yet, keep looking anywhere but forward in somethings as I lack the certainty I can endure much more at this point in my life, on occasion panic ensues at the very thought that another step of the cleansing of my soul is about to occur.  I do have a certainty that the time will come for the fullest of spiritual surgery to occur and I will be rejoicing when it happens. God is going to take the best parts of me and make them perfect.  What will be left behind isn't what I want to become even if it is what I want to be now.  And I am very grateful for being able to believe this. 

But being able to trust like this seems to me to be a gift (not in the sense of talent, but in the sense of a blessing from the Lord), not something one can will to have.  I see a lot of people with it and a lot without and I can't point in many cases to what makes the difference.  There are people who come from great parents who have been there for them and have had loving families of their own so they should have a lot of experience in trusting and yet they still don't seem to be able to see what trusting God in that way can be.  OTOH, I have known people from some pretty horrible situations where they have been betrayed by parents and spouses and even children at times and yet can place themselves so fully into God's hands in the here and now that I am envious....well, not so much envious as I wouldn't want to take it from them, but wistful about it as I want that ability.  I wish I could somehow vicariously share how I can trust in this way to the point that I can so that those who don't have the same experience can at least know that it is possible...and is good.  But their life and understanding makes sense to them as much as what I believe makes sense to me so how do I argue with that?  I figure God has a way to do it, but at the moment he is not sharing it with me.

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

D&C 132:52, 64-65

Oh, and the covenant of the marriage sealing ceremony may also apply here.

Russell M. Nelson's first wife did not agree to a polygamous relationship.  The first wife is to give her approval (see D&C).  She will have a choice to remain with him and live polygamy and I firmly belief that.

If I passed away and my husband was sealed to another woman, I'd want to have the same choice.

Edited February 19, 2016 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Russell M. Nelson's first wife did not agree to a polygamous relationship.  She will have a choice to remain with him and live polygamy and I firmly belief that.

If I passed away and my husband was sealed to another woman, I'd want to have the same choice.

There's always a choice.  Always.
Any covenant or law can be broken or rejected.

But the consequences exist too.  What is exaltation worth?

Edited February 19, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Sky]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

There's always a choice.  Always.
Any covenant or law can be broken or rejected.

But the consequences exist too.  What is exaltation worth?

You seem to be insinuating that polygamy is required for exaltation in the highest degree of the CK.  Russell M. Nelson's first wife simply has to accept this or be damned, or accept a lower place in the CK.      

The take home message for the wives seems to be along the lines of "get in line or get out."  

Sounds like coercion to me.   

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Sky said:

You seem to be insinuating that polygamy is required for exaltation in the highest degree of the CK.  Russell M. Nelson's first wife simply has to accept this or be damned, or accept a lower place in the CK.      

The take home message for the wives seems to be along the lines of "get in line or get out."  

Sounds like coercion to me.   

No.  The message is this - President Nelson has two wives.  His first wife has two choices - stay with him or don't.
She has no say against his second wife's agency.

So she can be married and receive exaltation, or choose to be single and lose exaltation.
It's not "get in line".  It's "your husband has another wife, do you still want to be married to him with whom you made covenants?"
Agency will not be removed.

Edited February 19, 2016 by JLHPROF

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

There's always a choice.  Always.
Any covenant or law can be broken or rejected.

But the consequences exist too.  What is exaltation worth?

His first wife made no covenant to live polygamy for eternity.

And you say that Russell M. Nelson's first wife can live polygamy or:

"She can be married and receive exaltation, or choose to be single and lose exaltation"?

I disagree.  What kind of choice is that?

Edited February 19, 2016 by JulieM