Regional Priesthood Leadership Conference

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

can just say it's kind of sad that a thread that starts with such edifying and uplifting counsel can become a thread that's neither edifying nor uplifting.

I'm not sure which parts of the thread you are referring to, but from my perspective, discussions about changes in mormon doctrine and/or practice is edifying and uplifting.  Dealing with something as it actually is rather than as it is sometimes portrayed helps strengthen my testimony, not just in the gospel, but in the church as well.  

[Avatar4321]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, admitting "that it is a possibility" wouldn't be a lie, IMO.  Change is constant within the church especially regarding policies....so of course it's "a possibility".

He didn't ask Scott to admit that he believed it would change.  That's different and I think Scott has been clear he believes the policy will never change.

I suppose that depends on the aspect of the policy you expect to change

 

[Bernard Gui]

On 9/21/2017 at 2:56 PM, ALarson said:

Yes, and here's another example of what was once taught (by a Prophet):

Quote

 

The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.268 - p.269, Brigham Young, August 19, 1866

 

I'm glad that is no longer taught by our Prophet.  So are a lot of the women in the church  (And many men are probably relieved a bit as well about that change in teaching!)

Here's the entire quote with emphasis added. I think Brigham and Bro Penrose were on the same page.

Quote

Now, we as Christians desire to be saved in the kingdom of God. We desire to attain to the possession of all the blessings there are for the most faithful man or people that ever lived upon the face of the earth, even him who is said to be the father of the faithful, Abraham of old. We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us. It may be hard for many, and especially for the ladies, yet it is no harder for them than it is for the gentlemen. It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at le[a]st in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc," − the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.

Those who will be denied blessings are those who who refused to accept it "at least in [their] faith.".... They are those who wish "there were no such thing in existence."

Edited September 23, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

That may change but it would mean another great apostasy.

That single doctrine IS the church right back to Adam and Eve.

If that happens it would be another church. I have to go with Scott on this one. I know he would not be a better person in my estimation for doing so. It would create a huge split in the church.

Our church is based on a dialectical way of thinking and that would erase the most important of opposition in all things.

But it is not worth debating it with you.

You have no understanding of how we think.

I think I do know how you think here.  The fact that the church has changed on some seemingly important doctrines is unimportant to your belief, except in a few instances where no change is allowed, and the gays are one of these instances.  No change on ssm or apostasy is confirmed.  Am I right? Close?

Edited September 23, 2017 by Pete Ahlstrom

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't think the current SSM policy (which states that those living in SSM should be excommunicated and that the children of gay parents can't be baptized until 18) is the church.  

It's called a policy for a reason.   It can be argued that it's based on doctrine (like most of our policies probably are) but that doesn't mean the policy itself is doctrine.  There are lots of ways that the policy could change and it wouldn't impact the doctrines of the church. 

I was talking about temple same sex marriage, period.

Not happening in THIS church.

If it happens it will be another church. All must get their own testimonies of which is right.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I think I do know how you think here.  The fact that the church has changed on some seemingly important doctrines is unimportant to your belief, except in a few instances where no change is allowed, and the gays are one of these instances.  No change on ssm or apostasy is confirmed.  Am I right? Close?

No, I don't think you can possibly know how I think.  It is at polar opposites of the way you think.

It's not confirmed for me until it is canonized doctrine sustained at conference and I have or do not have a testimony of it at that time.

At this point it is totally hypothetical. It does not fit my personal theology now, and that would have to change. I accept the church because it fits my theology, not the other way around.

My responsibility to God is to do what my conscience dictates, that is my compass. 

I had created my theology before I found the church, and the church fit.

If it does not fit,  I will no longer be a member

God first, not other men's opinions

Edited September 23, 2017 by mfbukowski

[california boy]

17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It's not confirmed for me until it is canonized doctrine sustained at conference and I have or do not have a testimony of it at that time.

At this point it is totally hypothetical. It does not fit my personal theology now, and that would have to change. I accept the church because it fits my theology, not the other way around.

My responsibility to God is to do what my conscience dictates, that is my compass. 

I had created my theology before I found the church, and the church fit.

If it does not fit,  I will no longer be a member

God first, not other men's opinions

Now you are sounding like me...yikes!

[Gray]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That may change but it would mean another great apostasy.

That single doctrine IS the church right back to Adam and Eve.

If that happens it would be another church. I have to go with Scott on this one. I know he would not be a better person in my estimation for doing so. It would create a huge split in the church.

Our church is based on a dialectical way of thinking and that would erase the most important of opposition in all things.

But it is not worth debating it with you.

You have no understanding of how we think.

I think it would be a very, very minor change in the grand scheme of things. Mormonism has undergone far more dramatic, fundamental changes in its doctrines/practices than whether or not to include gay couples in the temple.

It's no more an erasure of "opposition in all things" than was the removal of the distinction between black/white. Opposition in all things is about good vs evil/happiness vs suffering.

Edited September 23, 2017 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

33 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think it would be a very, very minor change in the grand scheme of things. Mormonism has undergone far more dramatic, fundamental changes in its doctrines/practices than whether or not to include gay couples in the temple.

It's no more an erasure of "opposition in all things" than was the removal of the distinction between black/white. Opposition in all things is about good vs evil/happiness vs suffering.

I'll think about it.  That is a good point actually that religion does not depend on "facts" about the world, though you did not say that.

But I can see no greater human example of ying and yang than male and female. 

If we do not intimately know the other half of humanity how can we truly love all of humanity?  Not all the connotations of "yada" are sexual but they are about intimate knowledge of how people think, and excluding half of mankind seems pretty preposterous to me.  You cannot know a person until you fully comprehend how their mind works in every particular.

IMO we are here to learn about the other half of humanity.  There is a reason "idolatry" and "adultery" come from the same root- we are created in the image of God- male and female.

How can we become like someone we don't even understand?  God IS "male and female" - a Divine Pair.  And the Godhead is an extension of that family- thinking as ONE despite their different viewpoints.

What most do not understand is that our goal is to become "bisexual" totally by becoming ONE FLESH with our counterpart- not in sexual behavior but in intimate knowledge of every part of the male AND female being- the core self of both at the same time.

I don't care about sexual behavior- that is the mechanics of objectification to produce arousal.  That is not the issue.  The issue for me is to be able to think totally as our personal OTHER who IS "Other" in every way.  It's not about sexual behavior or attraction.  We all have our little attraction triggers- that's superficial stuff imo.  You like blondes or a certain type figure attractive, but the issue is the HUMANITY of the individual in the final analysis of what matters in a marriage.  An 80 year old woman / man can be the most attractive woman /man you can imagine if you see him/her that way.

Maybe you learn that as you grow older and you guys are all too young to get it.

THAT is to become the image of God- male and female.   You cannot be half a being to be exalted in my opinion, you are to be one unified being the way the Godhead is unified, in every thought and nuance of understanding- to see it totally as the other but unified as perhaps we see with two eyes in a unified vision even if one eye is different than the other and sees things differently.

Understanding reality itself is a dialectical process- one must understand both the first person mode of thought and the second and third person points of view.

The point of view of "I" is different than the point of view of "we" which is different than the total objectivity of "they".   If one cannot see as a "we" of unified male and female humanity, I believe something VERY important is missing.

So for me this issue has very little to do with "loving someone".   That's nice, everyone should love somebody.  A buddy with privileges - who cares?   He knows what I like because we both like the same things.  But you know only half of humanity that way.

But to understand Mars AND Venus- different creatures who are complimentary is a very different thing.

We all have handicaps and God accommodates those.  No problem. 

Edited September 23, 2017 by mfbukowski

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

I suppose that depends on the aspect of the policy you expect to change

Any change or alteration would still be change, right?

[JulieM]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Here's the entire quote with emphasis added. I think Brigham and Bro Penrose were on the same page.

Those who will be denied blessings are those who who refused to accept it "at least in [their] faith." They are those who wish "there were no such thing in existence." 

I think many women (and men too) will be exalted and not have a testimony of or accept polygamy (in faith or otherwise).  If I understand correctly, that is in harmony with the teaching today.  No one will be forced to live or accept polygamy.  So that is definitely a change, I think.

Edited September 23, 2017 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

Well, admitting "that it is a possibility" wouldn't be a lie, IMO.  Change is constant within the church especially regarding policies....so of course it's "a possibility".

He didn't ask Scott to admit that he believed it would change.  That's different and I think Scott has been clear he believes the policy will never change.

I don't accept even the possibility that it will change. To say so, as he is pressuring me to do, would indeed amount to lying on my part.

I accept the word of the prophets and apostles.

Edited September 23, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

44 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think many women (and men too) will be exalted and not have a testimony of or accept polygamy (in faith or otherwise).  If I understand correctly, that is in harmony with the teaching today.  No one will be forced to live or accept polygamy.  So that is definitely a change, I think.

Would you at least acknowledge that God can and has sanctioned polygamy under certain circumstances? Has this scripture been changed, or should it be?

Quote

Jacob 2: 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

 

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't accept even the possibility that it will change. To say so, as he is pressuring me to do, would indeed amount to lying on my part.

I accept the word of the prophets and apostles.

Do you think it would put your testimony in jeopardy if it ever did change?  

[Pete Ahlstrom]

37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't accept even the possibility that it will change. To say so, as he is pressuring me to do, would indeed amount to lying on my part.

I accept the word of the prophets and apostles.

Couldn't you see the possibility of the people not being ready for ssm and that's why God hasn't spoken his word to his servants yet? This is a reason given as to why the priesthood ban lasted so long even though society seemed to be there already. Anyway, couldn't you envision a scenario where science of all things shows beyond doubt that certain people are biologically created as same sex attracted, that God actually was behind this all along? Then his holy prophets and apostles could then get a revelation changing the policy against the gays?

[Scott Lloyd]

52 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do you think it would put your testimony in jeopardy if it ever did change?  

I can't answer that, because I can't entertain the possibility. It is logically incoherent to me.

It's like the notion of the Book of Mormon being "inspired fiction." I can't conceive of it being inspired and fraudulent at the same time.

47 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Couldn't you see the possibility of the people not being ready for ssm and that's why God hasn't spoken his word to his servants yet?

But He has spoken His word to them, and they have delivered it.

 

Edited September 23, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

51 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

This is a reason given as to why the priesthood ban lasted so long even though society seemed to be there already.

I don't know the reason for the ban, and I longed for the day when it would be lifted, but I don't concede that it was not decreed by God.

Quote

Anyway, couldn't you envision a scenario where science of all things shows beyond doubt that certain people are biologically created as same sex attracted, that God actually was behind this all along? Then his holy prophets and apostles could then get a revelation changing the policy against the gays?

Even if the orientation were present but latent in the womb -- the theoretical "gay gene" -- that wouldn't prove anything. There are lots of congenital maladies that are recognized as such and that I believe will not exist beyond mortality in the resurrection and did not exist in the pre-mortal existence, before our bodies came into being.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would you at least acknowledge that God can and has sanctioned polygamy under certain circumstances? Has this scripture been changed, or should it be?

 

If it is a true principle, every candidate for exaltation will one day be obliged to accept it along with all other truth. That might not seem possible now, but "we see through a glass darkly."

Edited to add: I'm not saying everyone will be required to practice it. My hunch is that relatively few will practice it, and even then it will be a matter of choice.

 

Edited September 24, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Couldn't you see the possibility of the people not being ready for ssm and that's why God hasn't spoken his word to his servants yet? This is a reason given as to why the priesthood ban lasted so long even though society seemed to be there already. Anyway, couldn't you envision a scenario where science of all things shows beyond doubt that certain people are biologically created as same sex attracted, that God actually was behind this all along? Then his holy prophets and apostles could then get a revelation changing the policy against the gays?

Science proving a revelation from God?

Man you really have it backwards.  Science proves 1- God exists and 2-He reveals his will to his prophets.

Smoking funny stuff?

[readstoomuch]

If I remember Elder Oaks talk about the priesthood in Priesthood session a few years ago, I thought he said women receive priesthood authority.  It is a very good talk.  It sure made it sound to me like women operate in their callings, especially auxiliary leaders with priesthood authority.  

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, readstoomuch said:

If I remember Elder Oaks talk about the priesthood in Priesthood session a few years ago, I thought he said women receive priesthood authority.  It is a very good talk.  It sure made it sound to me like women operate in their callings, especially auxiliary leaders with priesthood authority.  

He said we are not accustomed to thinking of women's auxiliary leaders functioning with priesthood authority but posed the question, "What other authority could there be?"

 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Science proving a revelation from God?

Man you really have it backwards.  Science proves 1- God exists and 2-He reveals his will to his prophets.

Smoking funny stuff?

Of course. Religion always has a "special pleading" place in our hearts.  Keep staying in the gaps I guess.

[rongo]

9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

When a prophet says "this is doctrine" and then another prophet says "I disavow that doctrine theory" then things get messy. 

You also said (I can't find it) that you can't be sure that when a current prophet says something will never change, you (and we) can't be sure it will never change, because later prophets can . . . change it (paraphrase). This is true.

I think that the Brethren are very aware of this dynamic they have created (or allowed to be created), and this is why I think that current "this will never change" items will actually never change. I have heard and witnessed a lot of doubling down on certain issues, and I think they realize that if these things do change down the road, then the last person out the door should turn out the lights. This is also why I think that successors will also be careful "keepers of the flame," and why I think the Church will hold steady on these issues, even in the face of withering internal and external criticism. This persecution will also play into latter-day prophecy dynamics, which can be self-reinforcing and a good thing for cohesiveness of the core membership (setting aside considerations of truthfulness, which I of course hold to be true independent of policies and actions).

[Bernard Gui]

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

You also said (I can't find it) that you can't be sure that when a current prophet says something will never change, you (and we) can't be sure it will never change, because later prophets can . . . change it (paraphrase). This is true.

I think that the Brethren are very aware of this dynamic they have created (or allowed to be created), and this is why I think that current "this will never change" items will actually never change. I have heard and witnessed a lot of doubling down on certain issues, and I think they realize that if these things do change down the road, then the last person out the door should turn out the lights. This is also why I think that successors will also be careful "keepers of the flame," and why I think the Church will hold steady on these issues, even in the face of withering internal and external criticism. This persecution will also play into latter-day prophecy dynamics, which can be self-reinforcing and a good thing for cohesiveness of the core membership (setting aside considerations of truthfulness, which I of course hold to be true independent of policies and actions).

Ether, Lehi, Nephi, Samuel the Lamanite, Nephi son of Nephi, Mormon, Moroni....they did a whole lot of doubling down in the face of withering internal and external criticism. Lot of good that did. Got them either killed or driven out, but the folks still persisted in their course of destruction. See Brigham below.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can't answer that, because I can't entertain the possibility. It is logically incoherent to me.

Ok.  Thanks for answering.