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

[hoo rider]

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't know. Do other carpet salesmen-turned-pawnbrokers do it?

 

Scott,

You're making yourself look close-minded and foolish, which is your right.  However, you are also derailing and distracting others from an interesting conversation.  Please stop.  Feel free to start another thread about DB's faults.

Edited August 2, 2016 by hoo rider
Change post to thread

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, Flexible said:

 

So back to the 14 fundamentals?  I see no conflict between casting your lot with the prophets while at the same time having enough spiritual maturity to be honest about the difficulties engulfing some of their teachings.  

I don't think there's much "spiritual maturity" in publicly accusing the LDS Church and its leaders - the Lord's servants - of "dismiss{ing} {C}hrist."

Quote

And why are the prophets today so reluctant to even mention the "P" word? 

I'm not sure what you mean here.  Are you referencing "Polygamy?"  

• As in "Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"?
• As in "Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo"?
• As in "Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah"?
• As in "The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage"?

As in a series of essays about polygamy which was prepared and published to the world on the Church's website under direction from the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles?  That's the "P" word you are suggesting they are "so reluctant to even mention?"

Endless faultfinding is such an intellectually lazy endeavor.  It takes virtually no effort.  No study.  No thought.  Just pull out any old grievance and dress it up in contemporary Social Justice claptrap and - Bob's Your Uncle! - you've got a sanctimonious gainsayer who has done nothing to improve the world, but who nevertheless feels entitled and morally superior to those who spend most or all of their twilight years in religious devotion and service to others.  Because . . . Social Justice (or there is no "because" - just pernicious glee in the very act of finding fault in others).

"Why don't the prophets today talk about animal sacrifice?  When will it acknowledge the errors in this practice and make a large donation to PETA by way of Social Justice penance?"

"Why don't the prophets today address the plight of the people of Jericho?  When can we expect the Church to pony up reparations for the events described in Joshua 6 in the Old Testament?"

See how easy it is?  

Quote

Ever since the Manifesto they have skated over the thin ice of this doctrine. 

"This doctrine" is about as relevant to the Saints of 2016 as is animal sacrifice.  The Brethren don't talk much about that, either.

And again . . . four essays.  About polygamy.  With substantial references and footnotes to published scholarship and historical sources about the topic.  Published on the Church's official website.  To the world.

Quote

Some of our leaders treat it like a field of ground mines or like an anachronistic embarrassment which must be kept in the shadows.  I don't think the church can have much of a future if it can't do a better job of the narratives around these types of things.  Or can they at least honestly acknowledge the thorny questions the doctrine fosters and admit that the Lord has not yet answered them?  

Have you read the essays referenced above?  Are you even aware that these essays exist?  Have you reviewed their contents?  Studied the references in the footnotes?

Or is glib ignorance and drive-by potshots all you've got?

-Smac

Edited August 2, 2016 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You should at least listen to the presentation if you're going to make the accusations you've made. 

 

I read the PDF text. Is that good enough, or do I have to listen to the audio as well?

Quote

It would also help you with the CFR that was issued for you, if you could actually supply quotes from DB's presentation.

If I recall correctly, the presentation has been linked to. Go there if you want to see what I disagree with.

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, hoo rider said:

Scott,

You're making yourself look close-minded and foolish, which is your right.  However, you are also derailing and distracting others from an interesting conversation.  Please stop.  Feel free to start another thread about DB's faults.

All I've done here so far, other than fend off attacks from others, is to state that between Bill Reel and the prophets I hold with the prophets. Do I have the right to respond when others attack me?

I kicked a hornets nest when I said I cast my lot with the prophets. If others want to continue to attack me for saying so, let them be the ones to start a new thread. I may or may not contribute to it.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

48 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Has SMAC made the accusations you've made (and does he have a CFR issued on him?)

 

Again, what accusation? That he disparaged Joseph Smith? He did do that, and I've explained why I think so.

Quote

How about you speak for yourself here since you made the claims against DB?

I've said that I agree with the arguments that Smac has so nicely laid out. How about you deal with what he said if you want to oppose me, as I've stated that i agree with him.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, hoo rider said:

Scott,

You're making yourself look close-minded and foolish, which is your right.  However, you are also derailing and distracting others from an interesting conversation.  Please stop.  Feel free to start another thread about DB's faults.

This thread is about "Bill Reels."  He's mentioned in the OP.  This thread is about him and his opinions.  And he is now participating in a discussion . . . about himself.  And he is presenting his opinion, his largely unadorned say-so, as the basis for his remarks referenced in the OP.

So his opinion is fair game, in my book.  He's putting his opinion out there fore public critique, and it's getting critiqued.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 2, 2016 by smac97

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think there's much "spiritual maturity" in publicly accusing the LDS Church and its leaders - the Lord's servants - of "dismiss{ing} {C}hrist."

I'm not sure what you mean here.  Are you referencing "Polygamy?"  

• As in "Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"?
• As in "Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo"?
• As in "Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah"?
• As in "The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage"?

As in a series of essays about polygamy which was prepared and published to the world on the Church's website under direction from the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles?  That's the "P" word you are suggesting they are "so reluctant to even mention?"

Endless faultfinding is such an intellectually lazy endeavor.  It takes virtually no effort.  No study.  No thought.  Just pull out any old grievance and dress it up in contemporary Social Justice claptrap and - Bob's Your Uncle! - you've got a sanctimonious gainsayer who has done nothing to improve the world, but who nevertheless feels entitled and morally superior to those who spend most or all of their twilight years in religious devotion and service to others.  Because . . . Social Justice (or there is no "because" - just pernicious glee in the very act of finding fault in others).

"Why don't the prophets today talk about animal sacrifice?  When will it acknowledge the errors in this practice and make a large donation to PETA by way of Social Justice penance?"

"Why don't the prophets today address the plight of the people of Jericho?  When can we expect the Church to pony up reparations for the events described in Joshua 6 in the Old Testament?"

See how easy it is?  

"This doctrine" is about as relevant to the Saints of 2016 as is animal sacrifice.  The Brethren don't talk much about that, either.

Wasn't animal sacrifice practiced to point towards Christ and His atonement?  Wasn't it true that animal sacrifice was discontinued precisely because the ultimate sacrifice was accomplished through atonement, fulfilling that older practice?  that's an odd comparison, because the point of animal sacrifice is or should be front and center. 

With the a nod to the essays, I still think he's right in regards to polygamy in our history.  It's largely ignored, treated as that which we ought to be embarrassed about, and all that. 

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And again . . . four essays.  About polygamy.  With substantial references and footnotes to published scholarship and historical sources about the topic.  Published on the Church's official website.  To the world.

Have you read the essays referenced above?  Are you even aware that these essays exist?  Have you reviewed their contents?  Studied the references in the footnotes?

We all now about the essays and have read them, Smac.  Dont' get worked up.  his point remains. 

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Or is glib ignorance and drive-by potshots all you've got?

-Smac

Well that's not a very kind welcome, Smac. 

 

[DBMormon]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That he disparaged Joseph Smith? He did do that.

your insisting on a opinion as absolute. an opinion that it seems almost all if not all here feel is below the belt.  but by all means please continue.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Flexible said:

 

So back to the 14 fundamentals?  I see no conflict between casting your lot with the prophets while at the same time having enough spiritual maturity to be honest about the difficulties engulfing some of their teachings.   And why are the prophets today so reluctant to even mention the "P" word?  Ever since the Manifesto they have skated over the thin ice of this doctrine.  Some of our leaders treat it like a field of ground mines or like an anachronistic embarrassment whi ch must be kept in the shadows.  I don't think the church can have much of a future if it can't do a better job of the narratives around these types of things.  Or can they at least honestly acknowledge the thorny questions the doctrine fosters and admit that the Lord has not yet answered them?  

This.  Exactly.  So well stated.  

[JulieM]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I read the PDF text. Is that good enough, or do I have to listen to the audio as well?

 

 

If I recall correctly, the presentation has been linked to. Go there if you want to see what I disagree with.

That's funny.  You want me to go search for what you disagree with? 

You have the open CFR here.  Or have you supplied the quotes supporting what you claimed?

[Scott Lloyd]

50 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Pawn Brokers have a lot more leeway ;-) 

Do I detect a double-standard here?

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Wasn't animal sacrifice practiced to point towards Christ and His atonement?  Wasn't it true that animal sacrifice was discontinued precisely because the ultimate sacrifice was accomplished through atonement, fulfilling that older practice?  that's an odd comparison, because the point of animal sacrifice is or should be front and center. 

My point is rather simple.  Animal sacrifice is, for some, an "icky" concept.  So is polygamy.  Both were previously important religious observances in the eyes of Latter-day Saints (who lay claim not only to Joseph Smith, but to the biblical prophets as "ancestors" in our faith), but are not presently practiced.

My point is that animal sacrifice doesn't merit a significant amount of treatment by prophets and apostles in 2016 because it is not presently an observed religious practice.  The same goes for polygamy.

And to the extent that polygamy merits discussion, the Church has published four extensive essays on the history of polygamy in the Church.

Quote

With the a nod to the essays, I still think he's right in regards to polygamy in our history.  It's largely ignored, treated as that which we ought to be embarrassed about, and all that. 

I don't think we are embarrassed about it.  We own it.  It's still there in our scripture (the Bible, D&C 132, etc.).

Again, I don't think polygamy merits a significant amount of treatment by prophets and apostles in 2016 because it is not presently an observed religious practice

Quote

We all now about the essays and have read them, Smac.  Dont' get worked up.  his point remains. 

I'm not sure it does.  In fact, I think his "point" is rather strongly rebutted by the essays.  He says the leaders of the Church are "so reluctant to even mention the 'P' word," and yet they've had four essays on the "P" word published to the world.  

Quote

Well that's not a very kind welcome, Smac. 

He's the one making ignorant statements (falsely claiming that the Church is "reluctant to even mention the 'P' word") and publicly - and to our faces - disparaging the honesty and integrity of the Church ("The Institutional Church would not qualify for a TR.  It could not truthfully respond that it has striven to be 'honest in all its dealings with its fellow men.'  Said another way--If the Church were a publicly traded company with traded, listed stock, it would be in blatant violation of SEC disclosure rules intended to provide transparency to investors.").  All I have done is object to his ignorant statements and drive-by potshots.

-Smac

Edited August 2, 2016 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

47 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

your insisting on a opinion as absolute.

No. I'm disagreeing with your absolute opinion.

Quote

an opinion that it seems almost all if not all here feel is below the belt.  but by all means please continue.

You mean the Bill Reel cheering section? What was it that consig said about herds being the keepers of men?

 

Edited August 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, JulieM said:

That's funny.  You want me to go search for what you disagree with? 

 

You are easily amused.

You don't have to do much searching. It's all right there in the PDF. I pretty much disagree with the whole thesis.

Quote

You have the open CFR here.  Or have you supplied the quotes supporting what you claimed?

There's no open CFR. I've already responded by saying I needn't supply references for a personal opinion.

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

This.  Exactly.  So well stated.  

I thought Smac's response to it was apt. Did you catch that?

 

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

He's the one making ignorant statements (falsely claiming that the Church is "reluctant to even mention the 'P' word")....

But DB is right to make this claim.  When did you last hear a leader speak about the polygamy that was lived and taught?  When have you seen a lesson on it for the general membership of the church? How about a statement regarding our current doctrine or teachings about how we may be asked to live it after this life?  I could go on and on, but DB is correct to state what he did.  The topic of polygamy is definitely avoided and is taboo to bring up at church for discussion.

I think Juliann has an unanswered CFR issued for anyone to produce a statement regarding current teachings on polygamy from our recent Prophets or Apostles.  

.

Edited August 2, 2016 by ALarson

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I thought Smac's response to it was apt. Did you catch that?

 

His non-sequitur about dismissing Christ?  Saw it.  It was a dodge.  Not impressed.

[Jeanne]

I read Bill's pdf..twice..and then I have been trying to understand this entire thread.  Actually, this has been hard for me and perhaps some other women on this board also. I  do admire Calm and her acceptance of polygamy if it is to be had in the eternities.  Bluebell and Juiie  may have different takes..but as a  woman and exmormon, I have tried hard to keep  my belief in God..and my place as a daughter of God.  It is so hard for me to understand that whether one is a mistress, concubine or a legitimite legal companion that my Heavenly Father would think so little of His daughters that he would even discriminate by class and status of what I feel is like a piece of meat.  I am just stating feelings here and no..this is not  just about me and my personal relationship with God..but it affects my relationship and personal respect for the Heavenly Mother that I still believe in!!  What a sham if this is all true..there is no reason moral or otherwise to believe that God loves me if he put upon the earth this horrible sham and shame of excuses for men. 

[salgare]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I am just stating feelings here and no..this is not  just about me and my personal relationship with God..but it affects my relationship and personal respect for the Heavenly Mother that I still believe in!!  What a sham if this is all true..there is no reason moral or otherwise to believe that God loves me if he put upon the earth this horrible sham and shame of excuses for men. 

Funny when one's intrinsic morals exceed god given morals, and yet we still have to dance around justifications for an immoral god.

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But DB is right to make this claim.  

No, he's not.

Quote

When did you last hear a leader speak about the polygamy that was lived and taught?  

And again . . . four essays.  About polygamy.  With substantial references and footnotes to published scholarship and historical sources about the topic.  Published on the Church's official website.  To the world.  Prepared and published by the approval of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Are we really going to quibble about the venue in which the Church addresses polygamy?  That formal essays published to the world just don't count?  What are you saying here?

I also haven't heard a leader speak about animal sacrifice.   Animal sacrifice is, for some, an "icky" concept.  So is polygamy.  Both were previously important religious observances in the eyes of Latter-day Saints (who lay claim not only to Joseph Smith, but to the biblical prophets as "ancestors" in our faith), but are not presently practiced.  

My point is that animal sacrifice doesn't merit a significant amount of treatment by prophets and apostles in 2016 because it is not presently an observed religious practice.  The same goes for polygamy.

Quote

When have you seen a lesson on it for the general membership of the church?

Yes.  Polygamy is addressed in the Church History In The Fulness Of Times Student Manual, in the Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual, in the Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, in the Foundations of the Restoration Teacher Manual, in the Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual, in the Teachings of Presidents of the Church: John Taylor Manual, and elsewhere.

Polygamy is not a presently observed religious practice.  Neither is animal sacrifice.  Neither is Levirate marriage.  Neither are many other topics.  Meanwhile, the Church proceeds and uses the three hour block to fulfill its mandate to preach the core principles and doctrines of the Restored Gospel.  "Yea, even he commanded them that they should preach nothing save it were repentance and faith on the Lord, who had redeemed his people."  (Mosiah 18:20)

Quote

How about a statement regarding our current doctrine or teachings regarding how we may be asked to live it after this life?  

I would be fine with that.  Such a request (a request, not a demand) is a far cry from publicly accusing the church of profound dishonest (as Flexible did).

Quote

I could go on and on, but DB is correct to state what he did.  The topic of polygamy is definitely avoided and is taboo to bring up at church for discussion.

No, it's not.  It's not a particularly relevant topic, but it is raised on occasion.  On this last Sunday, our ward's bishop gave a lesson to the youth about preparing to encounter criticism of the Church and the Restored Gospel.  He spoke at length about polygamy, Mountain Meadows, and the Priesthood Ban.

The Latter-day Saints in 2016 are not asked to enter into plural marriage.  Or to build altars and make blood sacrifices.  Both of these topics are part of our history, and should be addressed in that context.  They aren't "taboo," they just don't merit the oversized role which - strangely enough - is being demanded mostly by critics and dissidents.  

In any event, the Church has published four well-researched and well-written essays which substantively address the role of polygamy in our history.  Anyone interested in researching polygamy for further information are at liberty to do so.  The same goes with animal sacrifice.  I concede that faultfinders and gainsayers are not going to be satisfied with these essays.  That's the nice part about faultfinding and gainsaying: you get to pick the target, and then move it as you please.  Such people will never be satisfied.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 2, 2016 by smac97

[DBMormon]

39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do I detect a double-standard here?

sure.  no need to detect it.  I frankly admit that pawnbrokers are under a very different code of ethics in their reporting and dialogue style than a journalist.... don't you also agree?  Also I say so frankly no need to detect an ambiguous point here. Also that said I have stuck with a reasonable argument and have made no leaps or mental gymnastics in my effort to disagree with you.  

Edited August 2, 2016 by DBMormon

[Calm]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Hey Calm,

I have to say I'm confused by yoru links.  None seem to indicate contractual relationships or legality when ti comes to concubines, at least from what I saw.

This is interesting as it pertains to our discussion though:

Here is a claim from one of your links that would agree, speaking of concubines, well, it is adultery. 

When I am talking legality and contracts, I am not doing so in modern terms, but in the sense that if the community has laws that define the relationship, whether in specific terms or in terms of what is or is not required of the participants in the relationship.  

As to the adultery, that defines the current Christian societal morality, not the Biblical Hebrew or Jewish communities' standards.

I am not debating that our current society would see concubinage as adultery.  Of course it does and should see it as immoral for other reasons as well.  The site probably sees plural marriage as adultery now as well; however, if so, it is hardly useful in determining what is moral in latter-day situations according to latter-day scripture. But that doesn't invalidate using the site to be informed about the biblical culture and laws (specifically Old Testament since this is the time of the Patriarchs and David and Solomon) to determine whether biblical law would define concubinage as immoral and given there are laws dictating its practice, it seems clear to me that it does not.  Instead, the Bible descriptions seem to be in accord with how the D&C discusses the biblical persons' behaviour as moral.

Section 132 only talks about concubines in terms of the relationships of biblical prophets.  They lived by the law they were given at that time, it does not say we are commanded to live the identical law.  There is nothing in it commanding for concubines to be taken now.  I do not see even any purpose in discussing whether or not God sees concubines as adultery or not in the modern day because there is no portrayal of a command to take concubines (even if there was, the Law of Sarah as applied to concubines cannot be invoked since there is no "handmaid" slot in our society since thankfully we don't have slaves...at leat officially; you would have to start from scratch figuring out how a surrogate mother would be accepted into a family).

I think significant additional language would need to be added in order to justify concubines in a current society. 

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Endless faultfinding is such an intellectually lazy endeavor.  

The only thing lazier is mindlessly siding with whatever your church happens to teach.

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, rockpond said:

His non-sequitur about dismissing Christ?  Saw it.  It was a dodge.  Not impressed.

Just as I'm not impressed with your boy's pot shots over which you were fawning.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, consiglieri said:

The only thing lazier is mindlessly siding with whatever your church happens to teach.

Anyone who thinks it's easy to continue active membership and service in this church while not being in lockstep with mainstream thought is speaking from a place of ignorance.