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

[Calm]

On the contrary we have quite current teaching on whether plural marriage is required.  From last December:

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/12/the-new-and-everlasting-covenant?lang=eng

See the section "The Place of Marriage...".  Multiple statements from multiple leaders that plural is not required for exaltation.

[Johnnie Cake]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

 

A new low Scott.  Shame on you...both of these professions are noble enterprises. You disappoint me

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

A new low Scott.  Shame on you...both of these professions are noble enterprises. You disappoint me

So are you criticizing DB for pointing out Scott was a journalist and asking him if the rest...whatever the attack was?

[Calm]

I think all this personal *** for tat is personally annoying to me and a waste of time for everyone else, but it seems bizarre to call out Scott for responding in the identical way that DB originally did.

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

On the contrary we have quite current teaching on whether plural marriage is required.  From last December:

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/12/the-new-and-everlasting-covenant?lang=eng

See the section "The Place of Marriage...".  Multiple statements from multiple leaders that plural is not required for exaltation.

Thanks for link, Calm for this talk from a Seventy.  I'll read through it.

Have you shown this to Juliann in answer to her CFR?   (Or is she asking for clarification from the Prophet or an Apostle?)  If so, I agree that it would be nice to hear from one of them (as was what ksfisher was referring to as well).  

Edited August 3, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

A new low Scott.  Shame on you...both of these professions are noble enterprises. You disappoint me

I never said otherwise. This is a bad rap. Shame on you.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think all this personal *** for tat is personally annoying to me and a waste of time for everyone else, but it seems bizarre to call out Scott for responding in the identical way that DB originally did.

I quite agree.

I think it better that we not make personal occupations/backgrounds part of the discussion. As I said, I didn't welcome it when Bill Reel did it to me, and when I turned the tables on him, it was to make that point.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

You didn't answer my question.

What is your question?

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Flexible said:

Smac

1.I bet if you and I were members of the same ward we would get along splendidly and our public perception of each other would be as faithful members of the Church.  We just have one significant difference: I believe you can sustain the Church and its leaders faithfully but have honest dissonance with some things.  That's why DC 21 asks for patience and faith in supporting them.  But this Board allows for healthy discussion where faithful members can be honest about their doubts as well.  If you believe that faithful and having doubts cannot coexist, well, I just don't feel that way.

2.  Based on my integrity barometer, personal to me, I am very disappointed in the Church's historical narrative, including relating to Section 132.  I expressed my opinion  that , as concerning its history and origins, the Church cannot say that it has been honest in its dealings with its fellow men.  I attribute some of that to what I see as a bad case of institutional paranoia and defensiveness justifiably developed through the course of its contentious life.  I stand by that, even if you call it a sleazy attack.  I don't see it as an attack.  And I think Elders Snow, Jensen, Ballard, among others, might just agree with me.  I think the Church is slowly making restitution for this, but I feel more must be done and done sooner.

3.  You incorrectly said I was giving blanket support to everything Bill Reel is advocating.  Not so.  I pray Bill will continue to take a faithful approach to grappling with the problems.  But even though I don't blanketly endorse his thoughts, I do believe some are very good and can actually be healthy.  I fear any members who do not learn to deal with the complexities and nuances of Mormonism but instead insist on black and white and no gray, will struggle.  I don't believe the Q15 sees everything in black and white terms.

I'm going to do 90 minutes of hot yoga now.  I was actually asked by someone in my ward if faithful members were allowed to do yoga.  What do you think?

 

every other woman, it seems, in my stake does yoga. In fact some even teach it!

[Johnnie Cake]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

So are you criticizing DB for pointing out Scott was a journalist and asking him if the rest...whatever the attack was?

Since launching this thread I've been out of town...in order to catch up I've had to skip every post by Scott Lloyd and Smac...the referenced post exempted.  Did I miss something?  Still seems rather mean spirited even if it was a retaliatory blow

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Brigham Young said "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" Brigham Young also said "if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith" What do you guys make of those quotes?

That we can't pick and choose what commandments we accept.  If God commands polygamy then obedience to the command is required.  As I read those quotes I get there were people who thought they could disobey the command and still gain exaltation.  That is not possible.  Disobedience is sin and all sin will keep us from exaltation.  I don't see polygamy to be the critical issue that Brigham Young is speaking on but basic obedience regardless of the issue.  The issue at question in those days was polygamy.  I think we could substitute polygamy with some other issue today and it still would apply like tithing.  "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God are those who pay tithing."

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What is your question?

Is it possible for a faithful member to have a principled disagreement with church policies or leaders without being a fault finder?

Edited August 3, 2016 by jkwilliams

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thanks for link, Calm for this talk from a Seventy.  I'll read through it.

Have you shown this to Juliann in answer to her CFR?   (Or is she asking for clarification from the Prophet or an Apostle?)  If so, I agree that it would be nice to hear from one of them (as was what ksfisher was referring to as well).  

She is asking for a teaching that polygamy is meant for us living in this day and age when we hit eternity (not sure if she cares about "possibly available", you will have to ask her), not a reference that says monogamy is sufficient for exaltation and we are not currently practicing plural marriage.  It specifies "authorized plural marriages of the past" will be covered, but Juliann has never disagreed with that.  And it specifies all who abide in the covenant will have their sealings honoured (and does not say women will have to choose which one to honour either)...which points to it making sense to equalize the living ordinances as we have the dead just as she suggests.

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I would imagine you're accountable for following section 132, though.

Only as it pertains to our time and setting. Plural marriage is always temporary and conditional, as we learn from the Book of Jacob in the Book of Mormon. Therefore, ksfisher is not accountable for applying the portions of the section that pertain to plurality of wives as it does not apply in our day and age.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Only as it pertains to our time and setting. Plural marriage is always temporary and conditional, as we learn from the Book of Jacob in the Book of Mormon. Therefore, ksfisher is not accountable for applying the portions of the section that pertain to plurality of wives as it does not apply in our day and age.

But Brigham Young's statement was to the effect that, practicing or not, it was required of members to uphold the truth of the principle.

[Calm]

This is made clear in Elder Nash's talk I link to above.  Plural marriage is the exception and only when authorized/commanded.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Is it possible for a faithful member to have a principled disagreement with church policies or leaders without being a fault finder?

I believe it depends greatly on how it is approached (and in this, I would agree with what Smac has expressed in this thread).

I liken it somewhat to being in a family. Where love and unity prevail in a family, we refrain from airing one another's dirty laundry in public or being publicly adversarial in our relationships. We do this out of mutual respect, kindness and consideration.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe it depends greatly on how it is approached (and in this, I would agree with what Smac has expressed in this thread).

I liken it somewhat to being in a family. Where love and unity prevail in a family, we refrain from airing one another's dirty laundry in public or being publicly adversarial in our relationships. We do this out of mutual respect, kindness and consideration.

So, it's OK to disagree privately, but not publicly. Is that what you're saying?

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

But Brigham Young's statement was to the effect that, practicing or not, it was required of members to uphold the truth of the principle.

So what?  Hetaught the Law of Adoption as well and WW more or less said that was an incomplete understanding of the sealing ordinance.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Since launching this thread I've been out of town...in order to catch up I've had to skip every post by Scott Lloyd and Smac...the referenced post exempted.  Did I miss something?  Still seems rather mean spirited even if it was a retaliatory blow

See my response post to Calm -- and to you.

Or you can always go back and read the prior posts.

Or better yet, just drop the matter as being so much water under the bridge.

 

Edited August 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

So what?  Hetaught the Law of Adoption as well and WW more or less said that was an incomplete understanding of the sealing ordinance.

I'm just saying I don't think any church leader since Brigham Young has disavowed the doctrine of plural marriage outlined in section 132. I've always been taught that, although we don't practice it, we affirm the doctrine. Has that changed since I became "less active"?

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Since launching this thread I've been out of town...in order to catch up I've had to skip every post by Scott Lloyd and Smac...the referenced post exempted.  Did I miss something?  Still seems rather mean spirited even if it was a retaliatory blow

In no way did Scott suggest that either carpet salesman or pawnbroker were any less noble than journalists.  DB was the first to reference the job (more or less along the lines of 'is this something all DN journalsts do?'  Scott's response was a mirror of DB's.  Identical in essentials.  So if you think Scott's was a low blow, then you should be calling DB on it first.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm just saying I don't think any church leader since Brigham Young has disavowed the doctrine of plural marriage outlined in section 132. I've always been taught that, although we don't practice it, we affirm the doctrine. Has that changed since I became "less active"?

Affirmedin what sense?  Thatit was taught to early Saints?  Who is denying that?  That it is an eternal law forthose who were commanded to do it if they so desire,sure, no disagreement here...but since no one is forced to participate in something they don't want to and since exaltation is available to monogamous and since BY never taught that those divorced a plural husband to marry a monogamous one would be cheated of exaltation and he in fact encouraged women who had that opportunity to do so, even there it seems to me quite clear that it is eternal if they so choose, but they won't be penalized of they don't.

[ksfisher]

38 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Again, that's the problem.  There are no teachings today from our Prophet to help those with questions.  So are we to believe what was last taught is still applicable today?  If not, why hasn't this been clarified.?  They are almost completely silent on the topic.  Has the doctrine that was taught been changed?  If so, do you have quotes supporting this change?

I can tell you that there are many members (most especially sisters) who are going to their local leaders with questions on this topic.

I'm not being asked to live polygamy.  I'm being asked to fulfill my calling, do my home teaching, be a good husband and father. 

There's nothing about polygamy in the temple recommend interview.  Nothing about anything that Brigham Young or John Taylor or any of what the past prophets said.  I'm asked to sustain the prophet today.  If the Lord's prophets and apostles aren't teaching about polygamy today I'm not going to worry about it.  I'm comfortable with this.  I can understand how others might not be.

 

[Okrahomer]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think all this personal *** for tat is personally annoying to me and a waste of time for everyone else, but it seems bizarre to call out Scott for responding in the identical way that DB originally did.

Indeed!