Bill Reel's Sunstone Presentation and a Path to the Disavowal of D&C 132

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

it's the principle of study it out in your minds and ask me. They take all that information, come with some kind of a conclusion and then ask God what to do, sometimes the answer is yes, no or just wait. I wouldn't say society has totally moved on in issues of racism, women's issues, LGBT issues etc. 

I wonder how many times I've studied out issues to the best of my ability and resources, taken my conclusion to God and He's like, "oh man, you are so far off it's silly.  You can't even see enough to draw any conclusions....ah well...here's a good feeling for trying".  Then in response I'm like, "wahoo...I know from God that I'm getting 2 million bucks if I invest down this path...I'll have to give an extra amount to tithes and offerings as a thank you..."

[DBMormon]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think you're about right.  It feels to me like that which we call revelation these days is really just men in charge feeling impressed and very strongly about something--kind of like the policy change that's gotten so many of us questioning, and which President Nelson said was by revelation.  Then again how much different was that then Joseph's own revelations?  Beats me.  Sure he may have had that visit in the sacred grove, as we call it, but maybe his other messages, like D&C 132 were his own impressions that he felt strongly about. 

Also regarding that policy thing from November.  A New handbook comes out next year.  Make a mental note that I mentioned that here. 

[Duncan]

Just now, stemelbow said:

I wonder how many times I've studied out issues to the best of my ability and resources, taken my conclusion to God and He's like, "oh man, you are so far off it's silly.  You can't even see enough to draw any conclusions....ah well...here's a good feeling for trying".  Then in response I'm like, "wahoo...I know from God that I'm getting 2 million bucks if I invest down this path...I'll have to give an extra amount to tithes and offerings as a thank you..."

do you take investment advice from the man who's name rhymes with Ronald Flump rather than the better man who's name rhymes with Loren Muffett?!

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Way to completely miss the point of Bill's presentation.

 

What I see in his presentation is an assertion of a position directly and blatantly at odds with the prophets, apostles and the Church of Jesus Christ (not to mention vilifying the Prophet of the Restoration). I am recognizing that dichotomy and stating my personal choice as to which of the polar-opposite positions I embrace. I am entitled to do that.

[DBMormon]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What I see in his presentation is an assertion of a position directly and blatantly at odds with the prophets, apostles and the Church of Jesus Christ (not to mention vilifying the Prophet of the Restoration). I am recognizing that dichotomy and stating my personal choice as to which of the polar-opposite positions I embrace. I am entitled to do that.

I don't vilify him at all.  CFR for such a claim?  You are a journalist and have a responsibility to be accurate.  I am awaiting a source.

Edited August 2, 2016 by DBMormon

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What I see in his presentation is an assertion of a position directly and blatantly at odds with the prophets, apostles and the Church of Jesus Christ (not to mention vilifying the Prophet of the Restoration). I am recognizing that dichotomy and stating my personal choice as to which of the polar-opposite positions I embrace. I am entitled to do that.

Your statement doesn't make sense in light of what Bill presented.  But you are entitled to not make sense.

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure it's fair to categorize the New and Everlasting covenant as mentioned by John Taylor as plural marriage or including plural marriage of necessity.  While I grant it's possible Taylor meant to include plural marriage, it's also possible he did not intend to include such. 

What I see in his presentation is an assertion of a position directly and blatantly at odds with the prophets, apostles and the Church of Jesus Christ (not to mention vilifying the Prophet of the Restoration). I am recognizing that dichotomy and stating my personal choice as to which of the polar-opposite positions I embrace. I am entitled to do that.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What I see in his presentation is an assertion of a position directly and blatantly at odds with the prophets, apostles and the Church of Jesus Christ (not to mention vilifying the Prophet of the Restoration). I am recognizing that dichotomy and stating my personal choice as to which of the polar-opposite positions I embrace. I am entitled to do that.

Yeah..sure...have at it.  I agree, you are certainly entitled to it.  I don't know if you intended to quote me here, though.  It doesn't seem like any sort of response to what I said. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Your statement doesn't make sense in light of what Bill presented.  But you are entitled to not make sense.

As are you.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I don't vilify him at all.  CFR for such a claim?

Suggesting that he succumbed to deception from an evil spirit and accordingly misled his people? That amounts to vilification in my book.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Suggesting that he succumbed to deception from an evil spirit and accordingly misled his people? That amounts to vilification in my book.

Is suggesting it's possible he succumbed to deception also vilification in your book?  just curious.  I wonder if those of us who are the elect who get deceived are also to take exception for being vilified. 

[Scott Lloyd]

41 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Given the choice, I'd rather evaluate for myself rather than just cast my lot.  I rather like freedom of thought, though. 

The insinuation that I didn't evaluate for myself before casting my lot is false.

Also the automatic assumption that people who align with the leadership of the Church do so without thinking the matter through for themselves is a fatuous assumption.

[DBMormon]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Suggesting that he succumbed to deception from an evil spirit and accordingly misled his people? That amounts to vilification in my book.

that is illogical. a good person being deceived by an evil spirit into thinking it was a good spirit vilifies the one deceived?  you are stretching so far as to hold the ground of your accusation that your credibility is weakened.  using such an argument shows the inability for you to carry a sensible discussion.

Edited August 2, 2016 by DBMormon

[VideoGameJunkie]

I don't think Joseph Smith was deceived because in D&C 132 he had his exaltation sealed upon him.

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The insinuation that I didn't evaluate for myself before casting my lot is false.

Also the automatic assumption that people who align with the leadership of the Church do so without thinking the matter through for themselves is a fatuous assumption.

Well it's good to get clarification out of the way.  It didn't sound like you were claiming to evaluate the merits of any disagreement, but just that if faced with a disagreement you'd cast your lost with one particular side.  I just wanted to clarify what I saw as a better way to go.  No offense intended.

I don't know it's fatuous.  I think many members when faced with a disagreement with leadership side with leadership without an evaluation.  While it may not be true in your case, or in this case, even if it came off as though that's what you were saying, I think it common enough to say it's not fatuous. 

Edited August 2, 2016 by stemelbow

[DBMormon]

6 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I don't think Joseph Smith was deceived because in D&C 132 he had his exaltation sealed upon him.

weird. didnt other deceiving angels make eternal promises to those they came to deceive?

[DBMormon]

Scott do other Deseret News journalists use the same liberty of defining words and making interpretations?  this seems like a trait that would not make for accurate reporting?

Edited August 2, 2016 by DBMormon

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

that is illogical. a good person being deceived by an evil spirit into thinking it was a good spirit vilifies the one deceived?  

No, you are the one doing the vilifying by saying that's what happened.

Quote

you are stretching so far as to hold the ground of your accusation that your credibility is weakened.  using such an argument shows the inability for you to carry a sensible discussion.

Heh, like I'm all that eager to carry on a discussion with you anyway.

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

Does the historical data show that these men are generally led by God

With respect, isn't that a rather absurd proposition?  How often can we use "historical data" to "show" that the leaders of the LDS Church (or anyone else, for that matter) are "generally led by God?"  Isn't that pretty much a matter of faith?

Quote

to the extent that God is helping them to be on the same page on interpretations of doctrines, policies, beliefs, and practices.  

I'm not sure they will always be "on the same page."  

"For he will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept; and I will try you and prove you herewith."  (D&C 98:12)

We are all learning and growing together.  The more pertinent question, I think, is how we treat prophetic counsel generally.  

Quote

They while differing on favorite baseball team, favorite school subject, and favorite food; that it can be shown that they are generally unified on important and controversial pieces within the church.  I simply don't see it.  

"Controversial pieces" will include, I think, some matters about which we lack much in the way of revealed light and knowledge.

Quote

One only need read the behind the scenes stuff that is available to gauge that these men disagree within the context of feelings and beliefs on various crucial pieces of our faith.  

Speculative eisegesis.  Again.

Quote

And to see 15 men agreeing as being equal to revelation seems like a false way to define revelation especially in light of these men always being reactive on social issues and problems.

Listening to them is a better way of discerning the will of God than . . . listening to self-appointed gainsayers who presume to set themselves up as a voice of authority that is alternative and superior to that of the Lord's anointed.

We also have personal revelation.  And the scriptures.  These three tools (Scriptures, counsel from current prophets and apostles, and personal revelation) are what I hope I will always rely on.  Not . . . that other thing.

Quote

I ask my self if truly led by prophets that we define as in communion with god like moses, noah, and abraham....... then why do we need pilot programs, surveys, and seem to always be late to an issue long after the majority of society has already arrived there?

You are correct.  As you we are recall, we are told in D&C 58:26 that "it is {} meet that I should command in all things."  Oh, wait, maybe that's not quite right...

Maybe D&C 8:2 is appropriate here: "But, behold, I say unto you, that you must {not} study it out in your mind; {you must instead take no action or initiative whatsoever, and make no use at all of your intellect or of any other resource available to you..."  Oh, wait, that's not quite right, either...

</sarcasm>

Your armchair quarterbacking is at once exasperating, amusing and pathetic.  The leaders of the Church are striving to do what they think is right.  They can be in communion with God and yet still make mistakes (Moses is a good example of that).  

You cite Moses as being "in communion with {G}od," yet he made mistakes, had lapses in judgment, etc.  And yet folks like you apparently cannot accommodate even the thought of giving comparable measures of latitude to today's prophets and apostles.  I am befuddled as to why that is.  I think some of us are in the thrall of faultfinding.  And the really pernicious thing about that particular pasttime is . . . we will pretty much always succeed at it.

I am reminded of these comments by Joseph Smith: 

Quote

Teachings of Joseph Smith

Losing confidence in Church leaders, criticizing them, and neglecting any duty required by God lead to apostasy.

“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.

Sound counsel, that.

Quote

When I ask myself what can I truly see foresight on behalf of the church long before the issue arose, I am left with very few.  When I see the Church being unresponsive or late to serious issues I see many. 

And so the proper course for your oh-so-enlightened self is to . . . publicly disparage the Lord's anointed.

I think the most common charge of this sort relates to matters of race generally, and the Priesthood Ban in particular.  That is, a major course correction for the Church was required, and it took quite a while.  And by "it" I mean OD-2 issued in 1978.  In other words, the Church did not make this major course correction until the Lord decreed it.  The same goes for polygamy.  It was a major course correction, but the Church relied on a revelation to make it.

I'm not sure that there are "many" others.  The Church has very much refined and improved its treatment of same-sex attraction, gay marriage, etc., and yet it is remaining firm on doctrines pertaining to it (that homosexual conduct is sinful and violates the Law of Chastity, that same-sex marriage is not compatible with the Plan of Salvation, etc.).  So no "major course correction" there.  To the contrary, Elder Nelson's remarks earlier this year demonstrate that the Brethren have sought and received guidance from God on this issue.

Women and the priesthood?  Same thing, I think.  No major "course correction," but we are seeing substantial refinements and improvements.  

Meanwhile, the Church is leading the charge to proclaim the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  That may be anathema to Social Justice Warrior types, but for me, it is the Church fulfilling its divine mandate.

The Church is also a well-recognized authority and leader on genealogy.  And emergency preparedness and self-reliance ("Provident Living").  And education.  And improving employment skills.  And charitable and philanthropic work.  And many other admirable fields and efforts.

The faultfinders and gainsayers amongst us may be blind to such things (or worse, they deliberately ignore them), but I'm not.

Quote

In my mind I have had to renegotiate how to define prophet.  I now define that if... a big if....  God wants to talk to his church he will do so through his prophet but that such face to face clear and direct communication has not occurred till going far enough back as Joseph Smith.

In my mind, I think some review about basic principles of the Gospel may be in order.  The form of revelatory guidance given to prophets runs the gamut from grand and glorious (the Burning Bush, the First Vision, Testimony of the Three Witnesses etc.) to a "still small voice."  To insist that only one form of revelation ("face to face clear and direct communication") is valid is . . . well, wrong.  Gadzooks, man!  You are contradicting yourself.  John Taylor's 1886 revelation, if it was one, makes no mention of a "face to face clear and direct communication."  If anything, it sounds like it was more likely received in a "still small voice" kind of way (I'm speculating, but doing so seems like fair game at the moment since it is your default modus operandi).  And yet here you are, excoriating the Church for not accepting it.  And yet a few posts later you are complaining about a lack of big ticket "face to face clear and direct communication"-types of revelation.

So which is it?  Do you accept revelations that are given through "the still small voice" or not?  If you do, then fretting about the supposed post-Joseph-Smith absence of "face to face clear and direct communication{s}" doesn't make any sense.  And if you do not, then you would probably be rejecting John Taylor's 1886 revelation because it doesn't present itself as a "face to face clear and direct communication."  

Also, some review of church history would also not go amiss.  There have been "face to face clear and direct communication{s}" subsequent to Joseph Smith.  There have also been many, many other revelations that fall elsewhere on the above-referenced spectrum, but which are just as valid as a disembodied finger writing on a wall, or a burning bush, or a "face to face clear and direct communication."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 2, 2016 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Is suggesting it's possible he succumbed to deception also vilification in your book?  just curious.  I wonder if those of us who are the elect who get deceived are also to take exception for being vilified. 

As I said, I cast my lot with the prophets.

[DBMormon]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, you are the one doing the vilifying by saying that's what happened.

Heh, like I'm all that eager to carry on a discussion with you anyway.

 

weird, lets go back and see who quotes and initiates dialogue with other more....... your funny

Also in terms of my vilifying Joseph.... that is also false as I go out my way in the presentation to caution people to recognize the duress Joseph seems to be under as he contemplates implementing plural marriage.  again CFR.  Seems your not very stable...........  in your argument.

Edited August 2, 2016 by DBMormon

[Calm]

Stem, do you agree that concubines were not engaged in adultery with their husbands/masters?

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I said, I cast my lot with the prophets.

Yes...you did say that.  This non-responsive, repetitive robot reflex isn't really helping though. 

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I don't vilify him at all.  CFR for such a claim?  You are a journalist and have a responsibility to be accurate.  I am awaiting a source.

You have publicly accused the Church of "dismissing {C}hrist."  I don't think the Church had "dismiss{ed} Christ" at all.  CFR for such a claim?  You are a member of the Church and have a responsibility to be honest in your dealings with you fellow men.  I am awaiting a source.

Right back atcha...

-Smac

[DBMormon]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Yes...you did say that.  This non-responsive, repetitive robot reflex isn't really helping though. 

it feels like an offshoot of "I don't have a very good argument so let me bear testimony"