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

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, Sky said:

 

So the President of the Church lied.  Spencer W. Kimball and Gordon B. Hinckley were in error.  And Thomas S. Monson is in error today.  Plural marriage is God's eternal, unchanging will for His children.  Got it.

Don't confuse God's will for God's law.
We couldn't manage to live Consecration so we got Tithing.  Right now tithing is God's will for his children but consecration is still the law of God.
Right now apparently legal monogamy is God's will for his children but polygamy is still the law of God.

Basically - God's will is for us to live up to the highest law we are currently able.  For the children of Israel they were not capable of living up to a Melchizedek level.  So God 100% required them to live up to an Aaronic/Levitical temporal level.  It didn't remove higher laws from God's law, but it did take them from God's will.  The people of Jacob couldn't righteously live polygamy so God revoked it and they lost that blessing but God say he could command it again because as D&C 132 says "it was the law".

As Joseph Smith said:

• "That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire."

And Brigham Young reminded us that:

• It was not my prerogative to call him in question with regard to any act of his life. He was God's servant, and not mine. He did not belong to the people but to the Lord, and was doing the work of the Lord, and if He should suffer him to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray. If He should suffer them to be chastised, and some of them destroyed, it would be because they deserved it, or to accomplish some righteous purpose. That was my faith, and it is my faith still.

We get the gospel we can handle.  The laws are eternal.  These quotes address God's will which can include allowing us the freedom to only live lesser laws.
But "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him."  Eccl 3:14

Quote

Using your logic, JLHPROF, I guess we can disregard most of General Conference, because after all, it does not qualify as an actual revelation.

Not if the discourses are inspired.  If they are inspired they are revelation.
So how do we determine which ones are inspired?  Any revelation that contradicts previous revelation can be dismissed as false according to the prophet Joseph.
Because God does not contradict himself on items of eternal law.

Edited August 6, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Sky]

11 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

It's a basic principle of the Gospel that many of the deeper mysteries of the kingdom of God must be withheld from those who are spiritually unprepared to receive them:

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteriesof God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him. (Alma 12)

 In his epistle to the Hebrews, Paul warned that the reason why the mysteries of the kingdom need to be withheld from the spiritually immature is because if some of those who are spiritually immature do happen to learn about a particular more advanced mystery of the kingdom, much more often than not theirimmediate responses will be that such a doctrine couldn't possibly be true and that it must be regarded as something despicable and evil. The prophet Joseph Smith was well-aware of the fact that the deeper mysteries of the kingdom are hard for the spiritually unaware to swallow and digest, and this is why he made the following most-remarkable assertion:

"If I revealed all that has been made known to me, scarcely a man on this stand would stay with me. Brethren, I I were to tell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up and kill me." (Joseph Smith, Jr)

So there you have it, the deeper teachings and principles of the Gospel seem unture --and even evil -- to the spiritually immature and unprepared. And are not many of the comments on this thread a perfect demonstration of this principle in action?

But what happens when one of the deeper mysteries of the kingdom is at one time openly taught and practiced but then, in the wisdom of God, withdrawn and, at least for a time, no longer disseminated, taught and practiced? Well the spiritually mature can know by the whisperings of the Spirit that the formerly-practiced principle is true but no longer disseminated, taught and required. But when the spiritually immature look back to the time when that higher principle was taught and practiced they do exactly what the Prophet Joseph Smith warned they would do: they look back and condemn the holy practice as an evil and unclean thing and then set about to assassinate the names and reputations of those great and noble pioneers who laid a solid and secure foundation for the restored latter-day kingdom of God on earth.

 

 

i

 

 

Monogamy is the rule - not the exception. 

And besides that, does a woman's feelings matter at all when it comes to plural marriage??? 

We know that eternal marriage is required for the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, whether it happens in this life or the next.  But Plural marriage is not a necessary prerequisite for exaltation in the eternal realm.     

The leaders of our church have clearly taught this, and I'm sticking with them.  https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/12/the-new-and-everlasting-covenant?lang=eng

[JLHPROF]

29 minutes ago, Sky said:

I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives. - Joseph Smith

I will give you a key which Brother Joseph Smith used to give in Nauvoo. He said that the very step of apostasy commenced with losing confidence in the leaders of this church and kingdom, and that whenever you discerned that spirit you might know that it would lead the possessor of it on the road to apostasy - Heber C. Kimball

And I have done neither.
At no point have I ever suggested there is any other path to follow than the currently authorized path of the Church.
I am no any more righteous and I am confident our leaders provide us the highest laws we as a people are capable of following.

As I quoted in my other post none of that changes eternal law.  Only what is currently required as God's will.
If we were in Moses' day I would be saying the same thing - the law of Moses is 100% right and we should follow it but there is still a higher law that our leader is not permitted to give us at this time.  If we are led "astray" it is because we are supposed to be, probably due to our own weakness.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Sky said:

Monogamy is the rule - not the exception.

Ok, on THAT I do disagree with our leaders.  Except, I actually don't disagree.
Monogamy is the rule because society as a rule is not capable of living anything higher.  You can count on one hand the times in earth's history when the people were righteous enough to keep all of God's laws.
 

Quote

And besides that, does a woman's feelings matter at all when it comes to plural marriage???

No.  And nor do the men's.  And nor do anyone's concerning tithing, consecration, temple covenants, word of wisdom etc etc.
Our feelings on a law of God are 100% irrelevant.
God's gospel has never been about making us feel all comfortable, warm, and fuzzy.  Just ask the Saints in Far West, the Christians in Rome, or Christ in Gethsemane.
Their feelings were lower than any discomfort we might complain about today concerning the mere possibility of polygamy.

[Sky]

Quote

Doctrine and Covenants 132:19 makes it clear that eternal life is promised to a monogamous couple who are sealed by the authority of the priesthood and who abide in the covenant—with no additional condition or requirement. Any man and woman who are sealed in this way and who abide within the covenant will be exalted. Historical practice is consistent with the doctrine of eternal marriage as explained here. The ordinance that seals couples for eternity includes identical covenants and blessings for monogamous marriages and for the authorized plural marriages performed in the past. These same covenants and blessings will be made available after this life to the faithful who did not have the opportunity to be sealed in mortality

 

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Sky said:

Doctrine and Covenants 132:19 makes it clear that eternal life is promised to a monogamous couple who are sealed by the authority of the priesthood and who abide in the covenant—with no additional condition or requirement. Any man and woman who are sealed in this way and who abide within the covenant will be exalted. Historical practice is consistent with the doctrine of eternal marriage as explained here. The ordinance that seals couples for eternity includes identical covenants and blessings for monogamous marriages and for the authorized plural marriages performed in the past. These same covenants and blessings will be made available after this life to the faithful who did not have the opportunity to be sealed in mortality

D&C 132:28 I am the Lord thy God, and will give unto thee the law of my Holy Priesthood, as was ordained by me and my Father before the world was.
29 Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne.
30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.
31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.
32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.
33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.
34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

Seems pretty clear to me.
What law:
1. Was ordained by God and Christ before the world was?
2. Belongs to the Holy Priesthood?
3. Continues the works of the Father (to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man)?
4. Grants the promise of the Father to Abraham (endless seed etc)?

What law?  According to verse 34 plural marriage is that very law.  I don't see how it can be read any other way.
(Always better to read the actual scripture than some manual.)

Edited August 6, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Sky]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

We couldn't manage to live Consecration so we got Tithing.  Right now tithing is God's will for his children but consecration is still the law of God.

 

No argument from me on this one.    

Quote

Right now apparently legal monogamy is God's will for his children but polygamy is still the law of God.

Polygamy was the law of God for only a few certain people earlier in this dispensation.  That I will grant.    

But monogamy is the law of God right now - for us.    

I do not believe that polygamy is some sort of "higher law" for God's ideal of marriage.  You appear to be saying that God would bring back the practice if only we were capable of living it.  But there isn't anything from any contemporary Church leader saying this.  So I reject that assertion.  

Your real issue seems to be with the current leaders of the Church, not me.  Maybe you should take it up with them.  Tell us how that goes.    

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Sky said:

No argument from me on this one.

Polygamy was the law of God for only a few certain people earlier in this dispensation.  That I will grant.

But monogamy is the law of God right now - for us.  

I do not believe that polygamy is some sort of "higher law" for God's ideal of marriage.  You appear to be saying that God would bring back the practice if only we were capable of living it.  But there isn't anything from any contemporary Church leader saying this.  So I reject that assertion.

Your real issue seems to be with the current leaders of the Church, not me.  Maybe you should take it up with them.  Tell us how that goes.  

You have the right to reject any assertion you please.

I have no issue with current leaders of the Church.  Now current members of the Church on the other hand...
Church leaders are just doing what God tells them.  And God tells them according to the worthiness of the membership of our common consent Church.

• There has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation. It has been like splitting hemlock knots with a corn-dodger for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle. Even the Saints are slow to understand.

  “I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all. How many will be able to abide a celestial law, and go through and receive their exaltation, I am unable to say, as many are called, but few are chosen  - Joseph Smith

No, the fault lies not with Moses, but with the children of Israel and their golden calves.

Edited August 6, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Sky]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You have the right to reject any assertion you please.

I have no issue with current leaders of the Church.  Now current members of the Church on the other hand...

Your words in previous posts suggest otherwise.    

I'm defending the doctrine as it stands right now.  And I've backed up my positions with statements from current leaders of the Church.   

[Sky]

No wonder so many non-Mormons are still confused if polygamy is a thing for us!  

  

[Sky]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You have the right to reject any assertion you please.

 

Yes, I do.  And I will if it is not supported by current Church teachings and practices.  

 

Quote

• I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all. How many will be able to abide a celestial law, and go through and receive their exaltation, I am unable to say, as many are called, but few are chosen  - Joseph Smith

^ Nothing about polygamy in that quote.  

[VideoGameJunkie]

I made ano effort and important decision last night that I want to not care about wives or when I'll be married, and instead focus on trying to be a true disciple of Christ. Thats what I want to be important in my mind. How to follow Jesus Christ now, not what may or may not happen thousands of years from now.

[Bobbieaware]

On August 6, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Bobbieaware said:

It's a basic principle of the Gospel that many of the deeper mysteries of the kingdom of God must be withheld from those who are spiritually unprepared to receive them:

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteriesof God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him. (Alma 12)

 In his epistle to the Hebrews, Paul warned that the reason why the mysteries of the kingdom need to be withheld from the spiritually immature is because if some of those who are only able to ingest Gospel milk do happen to learn about a particular more advanced mystery of the kingdom, much more often than not their immediate response will be to declare that such doctrine couldn't possibly be true and it must be regarded as something despicable and evil. The prophet Joseph Smith was well-aware of the fact that the deeper mysteries of the kingdom are hard for the spiritually unaware to swallow and digest, and this is why he made the following most remarkable assertion:

"If I revealed all that has been made known to me, scarcely a man on this stand would stay with me. Brethren, I I were to tell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up and kill me." (Joseph Smith, Jr)

So there you have it, the deeper teachings and principles of the Gospel seem unture --and even evil -- to the spiritually immature and unprepared. And are not many of the comments on this thread a perfect demonstration of this principle in action?

But what happens when one of the deeper mysteries of the kingdom is openly taught and practiced for a period of time but then, in the wisdom of God, withdrawn no longer disseminated, taught and practiced? Well the spiritually mature can know by the whisperings of the Spirit that the formerly-practiced principle is true but no longer required. But when those who are spiritually immature look back to the time when that higher principle was taught and practiced they do exactly what the Prophet Joseph Smith warned they would do: they look back and condemn the holy practice as an evil and unclean thing; and then they set about to assassinate the names and reputations of those great and noble pioneers who laid a solid and secure foundation for the restored latter-day kingdom of God on earth.

 

 

i

 

 

 

Edited August 7, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[juliann]

On 8/6/2016 at 3:13 PM, JLHPROF said:

 

Not if the discourses are inspired.  If they are inspired they are revelation.
So how do we determine which ones are inspired?  Any revelation that contradicts previous revelation can be dismissed as false according to the prophet Joseph. 

So that is how you dispense with Manifestos and the Proclamation on the Family, just to mention a few.  

 

[juliann]

On 8/6/2016 at 3:52 PM, JLHPROF said:

You have the right to reject any assertion you please.

I have no issue with current leaders of the Church.  Now current members of the Church on the other hand...
Church leaders are just doing what God tells them.  And God tells them according to the worthiness of the membership of our common consent Church.

If that was true we would still be living in caves and beaning each other with clubs. Your defiance of modern revelation gets very wearisome. 

[juliann]

On 8/6/2016 at 3:20 PM, JLHPROF said:

And I have done neither.
At no point have I ever suggested there is any other path to follow than the currently authorized path of the Church.
I am no any more righteous and I am confident our leaders provide us the highest laws we as a people are capable of following.

 

More to the point, you are confident leaders will provide enough women for those like you.

[JLHPROF]

14 hours ago, juliann said:

If that was true we would still be living in caves and beaning each other with clubs. Your defiance of modern revelation gets very wearisome.

Which revelation have I defied?
I have seen no revelation since 1978.  And I have seen many things passed off as revelation that have no mention of God.

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎8‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 8:30 PM, bluebell said:

Basic as in it's easily answered with a yes or a no, a true or false.  

And the question of whether or not God has ever told someone about gay marriage in heaven is a completely separate issue than whether or not He could. 

You can have whatever justifications you'd like for not believing the church's doctrine on gay marriage. I don't see that it's relevant to what we've been discussing. 

Fair enough. I'll just point out that you're the one who brought it up as an example  

Quote

I agree that we can't have a perfect knowledge of everything.  That doesn't mean that someone can't know whether or not gay marriage will exist in Heaven, for example.  

 

[DBMormon]

On 8/2/2016 at 1:44 PM, smac97 said:

You have publicly accused the Church of "dismissing {C}hrist."  I don't think the Church had "dismiss{ed} Christ" at all.  CFR for such a claim?  You are a member of the Church and have a responsibility to be honest in your dealings with you fellow men.  I am awaiting a source.

Right back atcha...

-Smac

Just saw this.  My evidence would be to ask your self how much do we discuss Christ in our meetings?  I also would state the Brethren themselves in their emphasis of Sabbath day worship have acknowledged we need to be more focused on Christ.

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Just saw this.  My evidence would be to ask your self how much do we discuss Christ in our meetings?

ALL the time.  TOO much in my opinion.
Not because Christ isn't the center and main focus of everything.  But because there are other aspects of the gospel that can be studied, including the actual teachings of Christ.
If we spent as much time on his teachings and doctrines and revelations as we do on the events of his life I think Christ himself would be much more pleased.

[Jeanne]

On 8/7/2016 at 4:31 PM, VideoGameJunkie said:

I made ano effort and important decision last night that I want to not care about wives or when I'll be married, and instead focus on trying to be a true disciple of Christ. Thats what I want to be important in my mind. How to follow Jesus Christ now, not what may or may not happen thousands of years from now.

Yeah...live your life ..worrying doesn't do anything but waste valuable time!  Great VGJ!

[DBMormon]

On 8/2/2016 at 8:34 PM, Johnnie Cake said:

Included in the narrative of Taylor's revelation was his invitation to his body guard to continue polygamy.  If one buys into the whole narrative of this story then fundamentalist Mormons are doing gods work by fulfilling prophecy.  Talk about messy

yes once you are willing to validate this revelation is almost assuredly from the hand of taylor you realize the FLDS groups likely have just as a legitmate claim as we do and the Lorin wooley story suddenly becomes credible.  so yes..... very messy

[DBMormon]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

ALL the time.  TOO much in my opinion.
Not because Christ isn't the center and main focus of everything.  But because there are other aspects of the gospel that can be studied, including the actual teachings of Christ.
If we spent as much time on his teachings and doctrines and revelations as we do on the events of his life I think Christ himself would be much more pleased.

I think we agree and disagree.  The savior's life and teachings seem to take a back seat to family history, food storage, indexing, pioneer heritage, and missionary farewells and returns.  The Savior is an appendage to the church in so many wards and stakes.

Edited August 9, 2016 by DBMormon

[stemelbow]

Quote

Is Cafeteria Mormonism where the future of the Church lays?

back to the OP (hah,  who does that after 43 pages of squabbling about other stuff?)

It's never been any different than Cafeteria Mormonism.  I've yet to see someone in the Church who has not chosen certain teachings often as the expense of others and prioritized teachings individually. 

[Gray]

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

back to the OP (hah,  who does that after 43 pages of squabbling about other stuff?)

It's never been any different than Cafeteria Mormonism.  I've yet to see someone in the Church who has not chosen certain teachings often as the expense of others and prioritized teachings individually. 

Indeed. It's impossible to be anything but a Cafeteria Mormon.