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

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I hope my wife, children and posterity will always consider me their possession as I regard them as mine. 

I find the word possession to be offensive when speaking of a spouse.  Do you really consider them to be something you own or control like an item of property?

 

Quote

 

possession definition:

noun

1.

the state of having, owning, or controlling something.

 

2.

an item of property; something belonging to one

 

.

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

It was this very issue that led my 28-year old daughter out of the Church.

If the church isn't true then it would be false even if the church didn't have this doctrine.  Unless someone believed that everything about the church is God's church and it all went off the rails with this one obscure doctrine i guess.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎8‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 3:58 PM, smac97 said:

 

JLHPROF- This is so true.

Without polygamy Joseph would have had far fewer seed.  And it didn't hurt Brigham and Heber any as they had many wives of their own.
A complete Levirate covenant.

 

So what? I thought polygamy was about raising righteous see for God, not Joseph.

Quote

Scott Lloyd- And I'm not seeing your continued failure to recognize that "raising up seed" to God is not about increasing aggregate population. It's about channeling more spirit children into righteous, covenantal lineages, thereby increasing the numerical and spiritual strength and fortitude of the Church. This facilitates the Church's mission to prepare the world for the Second Coming of Christ. 

Why does raising up additional seed unto Joseph, instead of to the natural fathers, increase seed unto God? Why would it be better for Brigham to raise up seed unto Joseph instead of to himself as a righteous priesthood holder. Is channeling spirits to God through Joseph better than channeling them through Brigham? Does one accomplish God's purposes better than the other?

I feel like I'm really missing something logical here in this argument.

Edited August 4, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[consiglieri]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If the church isn't true then it would be false even if the church didn't have this doctrine.  

And if a frog had a glass @$$, it would only hop once.

[Jeanne]

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

No.  He didn't.
They provided bodies for HIS children, children they had already agreed were his.
He took nothing.

This is warped.  I am sorry...but in my opinion..when your genes, hair color and personality comes from your parents..they don't belong to anyone else. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I hope my wife, children and posterity will always consider me their possession as I regard them as mine. 

Sounds creepy...."You is mine..." 

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I hope my wife, children and posterity will always consider me their possession as I regard them as mine. 

I hope so too...really!  Only if possession means the prize of love.

Edited to add?  I have possessions that I cherish..in this respect, I could understand.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Jeanne

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And I'm not seeing your continued failure to recognize that "raising up seed" to God is not about increasing aggregate population. It's about channeling more spirit children into righteous, covenantal lineages, thereby increasing the numerical and spiritual strength and fortitude of the Church. This facilitates the Church's mission to prepare the world for the Second Coming of Christ. 

I'm curious if we've seen more success in channeling more spirits into righteous, convenantly lineages since polygamy was no more in the Church, then, percentage-wise, we saw during polygamy.  What's odd with this argument is, we simply wouldn't know if this is true or not.  It's just after-the-fact explanation that can't be verified.  But I'd think it better if there was no polygamy, because the Church could have grown faster, with more stronger families, bringing in more children.  The world then could be far more prepared by this time for the Second Coming.  But alas, we have this blight of polygamy--the effects of which we're still dealing with while most people int he world see us as too weird, insular, pharisaic, OT-like and all that. 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sounds creepy...."You is mine..." 

So it's creepy to you to hear the phrases "my husband," "my son," "my daughter," "my grandchildren"?

As pervasive as those phrases are in common dialogue, I can only imagine you live your life in a perpetual state of revulsion. What a miserable existence. I'm sorry for you. 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I hope so too...really!  Only if possession means the prize of love.

Well, of course. That's a given. 

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, of course. That's a given. 

I was just defining possession on my own here..  Scott, if in the eternities, Joseph Smith wanted to "adopt" your children and their posterity..would that be okay with you?

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So it's creepy to you to hear the phrases "my husband," "my son," "my daughter," "my grandchildren"?

You have to know that those are just a figure of speech.  You do not literally own them and they are not one of your possessions.  That's the issue.

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

And if a frog had a glass @$$, it would only hop once.

Very true!

I just get tired of people trying to blackmail the church when it comes to their feelings about doctrine (not that you or your daughter did so). 

When people say stuff like "I will leave because of this one thing so it needs to be changed/disavowed/whatever" it sounds like a child saying "I'm going to hold my breath until I get my way."

I understand the process of struggling with certain doctrines which leads a person to study and pray about the church as a whole and believing that God told you you need to go elsewhere. 

But those people who say things like "I'd still be Mormon if they had just disavowed this one doctrine" or who try to make church leaders feel guilty because they "chose that one doctrine over this person" don't make any sense.  

One obscure doctrine doesn't make the church true or false.  It might help reveal it, but it doesn't cause it.  One obscure doctrine shouldn't be the lynch pin in someone's testimony. If it is, then it was never as strong as it needed to be anyway.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

41 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I was just defining possession on my own here..  Scott, if in the eternities, Joseph Smith wanted to "adopt" your children and their posterity..would that be okay with you?

If I through the atoning power of Christ I was made worthy of exaltation, I would not expect that to happen. 

If not, well, I wouldn't expect to have eternal posterity anyway. 

By the way, why can't I embrace your definition of possession "as a prize of love"? You seem intent on denying it to me. 

Edited August 4, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So it's creepy to you to hear the phrases "my husband," "my son," "my daughter," "my grandchildren"?

As pervasive as those phrases are in common dialogue, I can only imagine you live your life in a perpetual state of revulsion. What a miserable existence. I'm sorry for you. 

huh?  Did you just judge my life as a miserable existence because I thought you sounded creepy with that one statement?

Come on, Scott, let's not over-react. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You have to know that those are just a figure of speech.  You do not literally own them and they are not one of your possessions.  That's the issue.

Two questions: 

First, if these are figures of speech, what is meant by them in your view?  Even figures of speech typically convey meaning. 

Second, as you presumably profess to be a believer and follower of the gospel, what is meant by the scriptural concept expressed in the Old Testament and reiterated  by Jesus in the New Testament that husband and wife shall cleave to each other and "they twain shall be one flesh"?

Edited August 4, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Very true!

I just get tired of people trying to blackmail the church when it comes to their feelings about doctrine (not that you or your daughter did so). 

When people say stuff like "I will leave because of this one thing so it needs to be changed/disavowed/whatever" it sounds like a child saying "I'm going to hold my breath until I get my way."

I understand the process of struggling with certain doctrines which leads a person to study and pray about the church as a whole and believing that God told you you need to go elsewhere. 

But those people who say things like "I'd still be Mormon if they had just disavowed this one doctrine" or who try to make church leaders feel guilty because they "chose that one doctrine over this person" don't make any sense.  

One obscure doctrine doesn't make the church true or false.  It might help reveal it, but it doesn't cause it.  One obscure doctrine shouldn't be the lynch pin in someone's testimony. If it is, then it was never as strong as it needed to be anyway.

 

 

Hey Bluebell, I disagree with the above, when applicable to those I know.

I, for instance, have a good friend who doesn't believe the Church is what it claims to be anymore, precisely because of its position on gay issues.  You see, he's gay, and had devoted his life to the Church but then realized he was getting treated rather poorly because of his orientation, as it pertains to Church.  You may think he's being childish or that his testimony was never as strong as it needed to be anyway, but I disagree. 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

huh?  Did you just judge my life as a miserable existence because I thought you sounded creepy with that one statement?

Come on, Scott, let's not over-react. 

 

Do you find those phrases revolting when you hear them in everyday conversation, as you surely must if they are "creepy" to you?

[stemelbow]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you find those phrases revolting when you hear them in everyday conversation, as you surely must if they are "creepy" to you?

Probably wise to just drop it, Scott.  I didn't say anything about what I hear in everyday conversation. 

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Two questions: 

First, if these are figures of speech, what is meant by them in your view?  Even figures of speech typically convey meaning. 

As a means of identifying them (differentiating them from being the spouse or child connected with another person).

 

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Second, as you presumably profess to be a believer and follower of the gospel, what is meant by the scriptural concept expressed in the Old Testament and reiterated  by Jesus in the New Testament that husband and wife shall cleave to each other and "they twain shall be one flesh"?

Not that one is owned or controlled by the other, for sure.

I think they are pretty self explanatory.  Be loyal and faithful to each other and be there for each other as equals.(cleave:  "to adhere firmly and closely or loyally and unwaveringly").  

"One flesh"?  A spiritual and physical union.

.

Edited August 4, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Probably wise to just drop it, Scott.  I didn't say anything about what I hear in everyday conversation. 

You've passed harsh judgment on me in public for something I said and now you want to "just drop it" rather than discussing a possible conclusion to which your indictment might logically lead? 

OK, we'll drop it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

As a means of identifying them (differentiating them from being the spouse or child connected with another person).

 

Not that one is owned or controlled by the other, for sure.

I think they are pretty self explanatory.  Be loyal and faithful to each other and be there for each other as equals.(cleave:  "to adhere firmly and closely or loyally and unwaveringly").  

"One flesh"?  A spiritual and physical union.

.

Then why are you in such haste to conclude that the former and not the latter is what I had in mind when I made the comment that you attacked me for?

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then why are you in such haste to conclude that the former and not the latter is what I had in mind when I made the comment that you attacked me for?

Where did I attack you?

Here are my two posts to you regarding this:

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I find the word possession to be offensive when speaking of a spouse.  Do you really consider them to be something you own or control like an item of property?

 

51 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You have to know that those are just a figure of speech.  You do not literally own them and they are not one of your possessions.  That's the issue.

You did state that you regard your wife and children to be a possession, didn't you?  That was what I was referring to with my first post above.

.

Edited August 4, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Where did I attack you?

Here are my two posts to you regarding this:

 

 

Maybe "attacked" was too strong a word used in the emotional heat of the moment, for which I now apologize. 

I do feel you jumped to a conclusion regarding my meaning, and that before I had even had time to see your message, others had piled on. 

[ALarson]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe "attacked" was too strong a word used in the emotional heat of the moment, for which I now apologize. 

I do feel you jumped to a conclusion regarding my meaning, and that before I had even had time to see your message, others had piled on. 

I get that.  I do feel that it's unwise to use the word "possession" when speaking of people in your life and you appeared to be defending the usage of it in relationships.  I feel it gives the impression of ownership or control rather than an equal partnership.  That was my main point.