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

[Jeanne]

53 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

No denying love for anyone.  It is just that once I would like to see someone place family over church..not God..church because we don't really know for sure about a lot of this in our discussion here.  I edited my other post also...but I just wanted you to know that the possessions that I have..are cherished..and that is what I mean by family.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.

You were not right to impute that to me or to jump to the conclusion that this was the connotation I intended. It's an example of the hair-trigger sensitivity that too often besets these exchanges. 

Edited August 4, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[VideoGameJunkie]

I am happy that D&C 132 promises a continuation of the seeds forever to exalted people so infinite spirit children, but can't that be accomplished with 1 wife if you have eternity to have those spirit children or is it just faster having spirit children with multiple wives for the continuation of the seeds forever?

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour 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. 

It's getting thick in here.

"My" is a possessive pronoun that indicates relationship to the person, not ownership.

Likewise, when I say "my" boss, or "my" accountant, or "my" teacher, I do not imply ownership of those individuals. Do you?

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

No denying love for anyone.  It is just that once I would like to see someone place family over church..not God..church because we don't really know for sure about a lot of this in our discussion here.  I edited my other post also...but I just wanted you to know that the possessions that I have..are cherished..and that is what I mean by family.

Can you entertain the idea that this is what I mean as well?

Edited to add: I like your edit in your post. I hope you recognize now my meaning is not that far removed from yours. 

Edited August 4, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's getting thick in here.

"My" is a possessive pronoun that indicates relationship to the person, not ownership.

Likewise, when I say "my" boss, or "my" accountant, or "my" teacher, I do not imply ownership of those individuals. Do you?

Why are you so insistent that domination and control is what I have in mind? I have never said that. 

[bluebell]

56 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

So, the church was true until he started getting treated poorly and it was at that moment that it became false?  Therefore, had he never been treated poorly the church would have remained true for the rest of his life.  

Or, using his conclusions, was the church always false and it was his treatment as a gay man that helped him to come to that discovery?

Edited August 4, 2016 by bluebell

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's getting thick in here.

"My" is a possessive pronoun that indicates relationship to the person, not ownership.

Likewise, when I say "my" boss, or "my" accountant, or "my" teacher, I do not imply ownership of those individuals. Do you?

Scripture and revelation and ordinance all use terms that can be considered "possessive".
Christ used terms that can be considered "possessive".

I don't see why this is an issue.  People aren't property - except yeah, we kind of are.  All through scripture.

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

Which is what exactly (I'm not sure what you are referring to)?  (And yes, I knew that Zina was not ever sealed to Jacobs and that their children would be sealed to Joseph per that doctrine.)

Why did she marry Henry?
Answer that and you may see a very different marriage.

[Jeanne]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Can you entertain the idea that this is what I mean as well?

Edited to add: I like your edit in your post. I hope you recognize now my meaning is not that far removed from yours. 

Right..I know what you are saying..and I know how I feel.  Though I feel possessive of my kids..I don't own them.  Part of my mother's love..is knowing that fine line and letting them think and BE for themselves  But I just think we used the wrong word here. 

Edited August 4, 2016 by Jeanne

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

My understanding is that Hyrum Smith was not an easy sale on plural marriage, and likely entered into it with misgivings.

Your understanding is in error.
He was not an easy sale on plural marriage, however after a discussion with Brigham and a revelation to Joseph he records his conversion.  This was prior to his marriage to Mercy so I don't think there were any misgivings when he married Mercy.

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Hyrum and Mercy did not have any biological children together, did they?

If that's true, why would Hyrum have an issue with Mercy and Robert's children being sealed to Robert?  iirc, Hyrum stood in as proxy for Robert when Mercy was sealed to him (after his death).

Their marriage was very short but he covenanted to give any children they might have had to Robert.
The fact that there were none doesn't change the covenant.
 

[Jeanne]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So, the church was true until he started getting treated poorly and it was at that moment that it became false?  Therefore, had he never been treated poorly the church would have remained true for the rest of his life.  

Or, using his conclusions, was the church always false and it was his treatment as a gay man that helped him to come to that discovery?

Bluebell, if the church came out and said that you were no longer allowed to be with your husband in any capacity...or with anyone..would the church still be true?

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Why did she marry Henry?
Answer that and you may see a very different marriage.

She most likely loved Henry as they courted for some time prior to their marriage.  She initially turned Joseph down when he approached her asking her to marry him (after her marriage to Henry).

From Fairmormon:

Quote

 

Sometime after Henry and Zina were married, Joseph told Dimick Huntington, Zina’s brother, the story of why he was compelled to introduce plural marriage, and asked that Dimick tell the story to Zina. As Zina is quoted by one author to have said, “Tell Zina I have put it off and put it off until an angel with a drawn sword has stood before me and told me if I did not establish that principle [plurality of wives] and live it, I would lose my position and my life and the Church could progress no further.”6

Sometime after Zina heard this story and almost eight months after being married to Henry, Zina was sealed to Joseph Smith. The ordinance was performed by Dimick on October 27, 1841, on the banks of the Mississippi River.7 This event marks a major change in Zina’s behavior, as she had previously turned down Joseph’s proposals.

 

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2006-fair-conference/2006-zina-and-her-men-an-examination-of-the-changing-marital-state-of-zina-diantha-huntington-jacobs-smith-young

[stemelbow]

58 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

I didn't pass harsh judgment on you.  If anything I meant that playfully.  I don't think you are creepy at all, Scott. 

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Bluebell, if the church came out and said that you were no longer allowed to be with your husband in any capacity...or with anyone..would the church still be true?

Based on that one thing, added to my other spiritual witnesses, I couldn't say right away.

But it would certainly cause me to do some deep searching, study, and prayer because I would not agree with something like that and would need God to confirm it to me.  I would wait for further revelation before deciding though. 

If I didn't wait for that before deciding it would mean my testimony was founded upon my husband and not Christ. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. . 

But there were men who had children with women sealed to JS who for all appearances are likely to have been worthy of exaltation.

[Calm]

Info on Mercy Thompson:

https://history.lds.org/article/doctrine-and-covenants-eternal-marriage?lang=eng

[Scott Lloyd]

58 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Right..I know what you are saying..and I know how I feel.  Though I feel possessive of my kids..I don't own them.  Part of my mother's love..is knowing that fine line and letting them think and BE for themselves  But I just think we used the wrong word here. 

I readily and easily got your intended meaning. 

Alas, I have not enjoyed such a charitable reading of my words here. 

As I said: hair-trigger sensitivity -- tinged with a dash of hostile cynicism for flavor. 

Edited August 4, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

But there were men who had children with women sealed to JS who for all appearances are likely to have been worthy of exaltation.

I lack sufficient information to comment on that, but based on my understanding of the gospel, the plan of salvation and the promise of exaltation, I stand by my reply to Jeanne's post. 

Edited August 4, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

So, the church was true until he started getting treated poorly and it was at that moment that it became false?  Therefore, had he never been treated poorly the church would have remained true for the rest of his life.  

Or, using his conclusions, was the church always false and it was his treatment as a gay man that helped him to come to that discovery?

This is not all or nothing, Bluebell.  He still loves the Church and embraces many of its teachings.  In our discussions saying the Church is true or not is not really for neither one of us to conclude.  It's really a silly idea--to call a Church true.

Edited August 4, 2016 by stemelbow

[Calm]

Scott, Brigham Young was one of them.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Calm

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why are you so insistent that domination and control is what I have in mind? I have never said that. 

Why are you so insistent that I had something in mind I did not when I said your statement sounded creepy?  I never did say anything about using the pronoun "my" when referencing people around me.  Your phrasing was unique when describing possession.  It sounded creepy.  I meant nothing more than saying it sounded creepy. 

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

This is not all or nothing, Bluebell.  He still loves the Church and embraces many of its teachings.  In our discussions saying the Church is true or not is not really for neither one of us to conclude.  It's really a silly idea--to call a Church true.

I assume that most adults understand that what a person means when they say "the church is true" is that the church is Christ's church, teaches His gospel, has His authority, and is otherwise everything it claims to be.  I suppose i shouldn't assume that anymore, but it's just such a pain to type it out the long way.

Beyond that, i don't think you are understanding my point but I don't want to belabor it (that rarely ends well) so we'll just agree to disagree.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why are you so insistent that domination and control is what I have in mind? I have never said that. 

How am I "so insistent" that "control is what" you have in mind? Silly thing to say.

Recap: You called family a possession. You were then questioned about referring to your family as a possession as if you owned them. You doubled down with a snarky response about what "my" means. I then challenged you on the ridiculous "my" argument because you clearly hadn't thought it through. I explained what "my" means in the common phrases you used as examples. Now you say I'm insisting you have domination and control in mind. So strange.

 

 

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You were not right to impute that to me or to jump to the conclusion that this was the connotation I intended. It's an example of the hair-trigger sensitivity that too often besets these exchanges. 

Good grief (who is really an example here of "hair-trigger sensitivity"?).  

Your initial posts seemed to be defending the usuage of the word "possession" when describing wives or children:

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

And this from you:

Quote

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

 

You've now clarified.  Let's move on....