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

[consiglieri]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

What is it about Bill Reel that makes you so defensive, Scott?

I mean, you are really going over the top on this one.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

What pot shots do you think I was fawning over?  Not sure what you are referring to.

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

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? 

No, I don't agree, and it strikes me as a lame excuse.

I didn't welcome your making my profession a point of debate here, but since you have, I'll follow it through and say that the ethics for journalism, regarding accuracy and such, are based on concepts and standards of honesty and truth, which ought to govern everybody, including, yes, pawnbrokers.

Moreover, journalists are also permitted on occasion to state opinions and draw interpretations. That's what editorials and op-ed pieces are all about.

But this really is a derail, so what do you say we let it be for now?

 

Edited August 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What pot shots do you think I was fawning over?  Not sure what you are referring to.

It was a subjective use of a term, I'll grant. When someone does a reply post to do nothing to speak of other than to say "Yup, I really, really, really agree with this!" it occasionally strikes me as fawning.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

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

And the only thing lazier than that is a drive-by potshot by someone who doesn't know me one whit.

I can be aptly accused of many things.  Being "mindless" in my devotion to the Restored Gospel is not one of them.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

No, he's not.

And again . . . four essays.  About polygamy.  

Nice dodge.  

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

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

Another nice dodge.  

I asked:  "When have you seen a lesson on it [polygamy] for the general membership of the church?"   The only ones you listed above (the few that are for the general membership), are not lessons on polygamy.

Honestly answer this question.  When have you been taught a lesson (given to the general membership) on the current teachings of the church regarding the doctrine of plural marriage?

At least you concede that we don't have statements regarding polygamy from our current leaders (as shown by the unanswered CFR issued by Juliann).

So, how is this not evidence that DB was correct with stating what he did?

Edited August 3, 2016 by ALarson

[consiglieri]

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Bill is thinking for himself.  Which is more than you can say, Scott.

 

 

Placing the issue of plural marriage in its historical context, here is what I see:

1. Joseph Smith revealed that the New Jerusalem would be built in Jackson County, with a temple built in that generation.  It didn't happen, but we give Joseph a pass.

2. Joseph Smith instituted the Kirtland Bank, and solicited contributions from faithful members promising financial rewards.  It didn't happen, but we give Joseph a pass.

3. Joseph Smith led Zion's Camp on a God-ordained mission to redeem the land of Zion in Missouri away from the mobs.  It didn't happen, but we give Joseph a pass.

 

BUT

 

4. Joseph Smith introduced the practice of plural marriage as a requirement for the highest level of exaltation.  But for some reason, some Mormons will fight to the death to claim that this ordinance was absolutely given by God and to suggest otherwise is to vilify Joseph Smith.

 

Why the double standard? 

That's what I'm wondering.

 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It was a subjective use of a term, I'll grant. When someone does a reply post to do nothing to speak of other than to say "Yup, I really, really, really agree with this!" it occasionally strikes me as fawning.

Well, that wasn't a pot shot that I was agreeing with.

[consiglieri]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And the only thing lazier than that is a drive-by potshot by someone who doesn't know me one whit.

I can be aptly accused of many things.  Being "mindless" in my devotion to the Restored Gospel is not one of them.

Thanks,

-Smac

I see no evidence of independent thought on your part, Smac.

I'm sorry.

That's just the way it is.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I see no evidence of independent thought on your part, Smac.

I'm sorry.

That's just the way it is.

You speak from a position of ignorance.  You don't know me.  At all.

That's just the way it is.

Thanks,

-Smac

[consiglieri]

Just now, smac97 said:

You speak from a position of ignorance.  You don't know me.  At all.

That's just the way it is.

Thanks,

-Smac

Prove me wrong, then.

On what issue has your independent thought led you to take a position contrary to the LDS Church?

*cue Jeopardy music*

[ALarson]

35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I didn't welcome your making my profession a point of debate here, but since you have, I'll follow it through and say that the ethics for journalism, regarding accuracy and such, are based on concepts and standards of honesty and truth, which ought to govern everybody, including, yes, pawnbrokers.

Is Bill a pawnbroker?  I must have missed that(?)   Otherwise, why did you bring it into the discussion?

What a strange bunch of posts from you today, Scott.

How about we focus on something specific from Bill's presentation so it can be discussed?  (Just a suggestion...to get back on track and actually discuss his presentation)

Edited August 2, 2016 by ALarson

[Flexible]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

1 hour 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.

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?

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

-Smac

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."

 

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

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?

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

-Smac

Smac

Someone needs to take a deep breath and reread my post.  I will overlook and forgive your nasty tone.  I must have certainly hit a nerve but it wasn't intentional.  Let's start over and see if we can address this "failure to communicate". 

 

1 hour 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 do not see any public accusals of the LDS Church and its leaders of dismissing Christ in my posting.    CFA Please.  I sustain and support them in every way.   

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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?"

I thought it was clear from the context of this whole thread that we are NOT talking about the historical practice of polygamy in the Church.   That's all the Essays cover.  The concerns that I'm seeing in this thread relate more to do with the quite real "hangover" the Church is still suffering from as a result of not only the historical practice, but the Church's current belief in and support of the doctrine.    So I'm not focusing on some arcane OT practice.  But rather on the very real and CURRENT doctrinal and Church practice issues stemming from the still accepted doctrine of plurality of wives.  Question for you.  Are you really saying that plural marriage should be filed away with animal sacrifice and concerns about the people of Jericho?  If so, it seems you have already dismissed Section 132 as no longer being true and practiced doctrine.  Isn't that exactly what Bill is talking about?  So you seem to agree with him.

But I would argue that the Church, while suspending the temporal practice of plurality, still accepts the eternal practice of it as doctrine.  The sealing policies of the Church today validate that.  (Unless you would like to tell the plural wives of certain Church leaders that the eternal practice of polygamy is not doctrine.)  This is the "P" word I'm referring to in my post.  And while the Church validates the doctrine by its sealing policies and practices.  But  where does the Church definitively and clearly acknowledge that plurality is going to be practiced eternally in the CK?  I would guess, based on my observation, that you would find strong and differing opinions among the Q15.  And not a whole lot of clarity.

Yet the doctrine is still in our canon as part of the restoration of all things.  It is STILL being practiced through the sealing policies and practices. And I'll bet you know personally faithful members who have been impacted by those policies.   So please don't try to lump it in with animal sacrifice or the people of Jericho.  Unless these are things that still keep you up at night

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

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?

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

-Smac

I will overlook and forgive the personal diatribes lobbed my way.  I guess anyone can act a little "Trumpish" these days.  But I will say that I have read and reread the essays. Yes, great job coming clean institutionally  on the historical practice, but really not adding to what was already out there.  I read Van Wagoner's book way back in the 80's.  Also others. Nothing new.   But the messy, very personal and current unresolved  problems with plural marriage are a mine field that I hope the prophets will receive further light and knowledge on

[Flexible]

My inexperience with this system is clearly showing in the above post.  Sorry.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Prove me wrong, then.

On what issue has your independent thought led you to take a position contrary to the LDS Church?

*cue Jeopardy music*

Why on earth would I do that?  I don't know you.  I don't trust you.  I don't think you would treat such things with respect or decorum.  "Trifle not with sacred things," we are told.  Sharing heartfelt sentiments about sacred but troubling aspects of my faith with you, of all people, would be to subject them to mockery, contempt, disgust, profanation.

I don't trust you with sacred things, nor am I particularly interested in soliciting your opinion regarding sacred things, nor do I respect your general opinions regarding sacred things.  You are a just a provocateur.  Cheap shots and insults.  Jabs and taunts.  That's your schtick.  Share sacred things with you?  Hardly.

I have many family members and friends to whom I can share such things.  People I can trust.  People who are ... not like you.

I guess the Jeopardy music will be chiming away for a while.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[DBMormon]

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But this really is a derail, so what do you say we let it be for now?

GREAT!!!!  And please rather than always seek out to write me off regardless of my argument, perhaps next time be charitable enough to actually engage my argument and be reasonable so that people can see your actually engaging my argument and not me.   I consider this dialogue over and I look forward to your next interaction on some other point.

Thanks 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

Is Bill a pawnbroker?  I must have missed that(?)   Otherwise, why did you bring it into the discussion?

It was a reaction to jabs he was taking at me and my occupation. Or did you miss that?

Yes he's a pawnbroker and makes no secret of it, but I really don't care enough about it to go into protracted discussion about it.

Quote

What a strange bunch of posts from you today, Scott.

As I said, I made one comment about holding with the prophets instead of Bill Reel. All I've done since is swat away the hornets who didn't like my saying that.

Quote

How about you focus on something specific from Bill's presentation so it can be discussed?  (Just a suggestion...to get back on track and actually discuss his presentation)

No, I think I'm out of this discussion, content in the knowledge that the Church of Jesus Christ is not going to alter scripture to suit Bill Reel or his devotees.

 

Edited August 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

Polygamy really didn't make the radar in my Mormon life, until the internet. I wonder if it's been that way for many out there. Most knew polygamy was lived in Utah, but not in Nauvoo, IMO. We probably didn't have a problem with it, since it was nice to think that the women who lost husbands on the trek to Utah, would be taken in. This was really nothing to worry about, and even when people thought LDS still lived it, it was kind of just funny. 

We didn't hear about the many sects that broke off from the LDS. We didn't know about the thousands that were living it in our communities. But we did know the temple recommend question about affiliating with any groups (now can't remember the full question) was probably about polygamist groups.  

But life has changed, and polygamy isn't as simple as it once was, polygamy has reared it's ugly head (other OP) and has become a big problem for those that struggle with new information that has had to come out to keep ahead of the anti's and the truth or at least look like the church was open about it all along.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Tacenda

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I said, I made one comment about holding with the prophets instead of Bill Reel. All I've done since is swat away the hornets who didn't like my saying that.

There is an clear implication in that statement that Bill is NOT with the prophets.  The comment also reflected a misunderstanding of what Bill's presentation was about.  Those two issues are likely what earned you many of the responses.

Your accusation that he vilified the prophet, is probably what earned you the rest.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

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. 

Thanks for this Jeanne. I know women in the church agree, it's really going to be a hard pill to swallow if section 132 is taught more thoroughly than the past. I shudder to think that there might be a possibility of it being lived again. Who knows, we might get a zealous leader in there that believes it's needed again, or gets a revelation. 

I love that you believe in a Heavenly Mother. I did at one time, until I started listening to Evangelicals and about Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ being the same person, and then I just started believing God was more spirit than physical. I'm just struggling all around. Darn church history not being taught more forthright, I might still have a great testimony of God and Jesus, but not anymore. It's all a big question mark. 

[consiglieri]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Why on earth would I do that?  I don't know you.  I don't trust you.  I don't think you would treat such things with respect or decorum.  "Trifle not with sacred things," we are told.  Sharing heartfelt sentiments about sacred but troubling aspects of my faith with you, of all people, would be to subject them to mockery, contempt, disgust, profanation.

I don't trust you with sacred things, nor am I particularly interested in soliciting your opinion regarding sacred things, nor do I respect your general opinions regarding sacred things.  You are a just a provocateur.  Cheap shots and insults.  Jabs and taunts.  That's your schtick.  Share sacred things with you?  Hardly.

I have many family members and friends to whom I can share such things.  People I can trust.  People who are ... not like you.

I guess the Jeopardy music will be chiming away for a while.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Why do you think that independent thought is a sacred thing not to be shared?

So are you saying that there are some positions of the LDS Church with which you do not agree?

Only you don't want to share them publicly?

Is it me you are worried about or the SCMC?

 

[VideoGameJunkie]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Polygamy really didn't make the radar in my Mormon life, until the internet. I wonder if it's been that way for many out there. Most knew polygamy was lived in Utah, but not in Nauvoo, IMO. We probably didn't have a problem with it, since it was nice to think that the women who lost husbands on the trek to Utah, would be taken in. This was really nothing to worry about, and even when people thought LDS still lived it, it was kind of just funny. 

We didn't hear about the many sects that broke off from the LDS. We didn't know about the thousands that were living it in our communities. But we did know the temple recommend question about affiliating with any groups (now can't remember the full question) was probably about polygamist groups.  

But life has changed, and polygamy isn't as simple as it once was, polygamy has reared it's ugly head (other OP) and has become a big problem for those that struggle with new information that has had to come out to keep ahead of the anti truth.

Youre not alone. Polygamy didn't make my radar either until I joined this message board. I was always taught growing up that Joseph Smith didn't practice it and that it was done because the men were being killed off leaving more women than men. That's what I believed growing up my whole life until this board and the essays and Internet opened my mind.

Edited August 2, 2016 by VideoGameJunkie

[smac97]

1 minute ago, consiglieri said:

Why do you think that independent thought is a sacred thing not to be shared?

Why do you think you deserve any particular attention?

Quote

 

So are you saying that there are some positions of the LDS Church with which you do not agree?

Only you don't want to share them publicly?

Is it me you are worried about or the SCMC?

 

Thank you for so aptly demonstrating why my assessment of you is correct.

-Smac

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Why do you think you deserve any particular attention?

Thank you for so aptly demonstrating why my assessment of you is correct.

-Smac

In the absence of your willingness to share any point at which you disagree with the LDS Church, I am unfortunately left to conclude your claim to independent thought is baseless.

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks for this Jeanne. I know women in the church agree, it's really going to be a hard pill to swallow if section 132 is taught more thoroughly than the past. I shudder to think that there might be a possibility of it being lived again. Who knows, we might get a zealous leader in there that believes it's needed again, or gets a revelation. 

I love that you believe in a Heavenly Mother. I did at one time, until I started listening to Evangelicals and about Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ being the same person, and then I just started believing God was more spirit than physical. I'm just struggling all around. Darn church history not being taught more forthright, I might still have a great testimony of God and Jesus, but not anymore. It's all a big question mark. 

 

Thanks so much for your honesty and for being my friend here on this board.  You can hold on to God and the Savior..but they won't be the same as spirit or bodies as the one you have prayed to for many years.  It hurts.and sometimes I feel your pain in some of these threads.  The fabric our grandparents knitted are starting to unravel..my hope is that after many years down the road and the changes I see happening is that I will feel even an inkling of connection to the heavens.  Peace.