Regional Priesthood Leadership Conference

[sjdawg]

Looking at Victoria Secret in the mall is a sin?  

[Gray]

On 9/23/2017 at 4:34 PM, mfbukowski said:

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.

 

Hmm, I guess I get what you're saying, but I don't know that marriage necessarily works in that way, or if it does that marriage alone will really help you get the opposite sex. What about having a daughter? What about growing up with sisters? Not everyone will get that chance, of course. Humanity is SO diverse that I'm not sure how you'd ever fully comprehend half of it, let alone all of it. No one woman is representative of every woman. And of course cultural differences are often more pronounced than gender differences. There are many hundreds of cultures that I will never really get. I'm married to a white woman from the midwest. I don't think that makes me really understand what it means to be a woman from Ghana. Or even a white woman from the midwest!

 

Quote

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.

But with or without sealing gay couples in the temple, that experience is still not viable for most gay people.

 

Quote

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.

Or maybe you see gender differences differently because you're of a different generation, with its own norms and culture.

 

Quote

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. 

I don't think single people really know half of humanity, and I don't think married people (opposite sex relationship) really know all of humanity.

If that's really the prerequisite to becoming gods, then I think God is going to have to teach us something more regardless of our life experiences - we will all fall terribly short of understanding much beyond our own noses.

Edited September 25, 2017 by Gray

[ALarson]

9 hours ago, JulieM said:

So if he married to raise up seed, why wouldn't you believe that follows he would have been with his plural wives during the years they were married (to raise up seed)?  I'm just trying to figure out why you'd believe they didn't have relations to live the principle as specifically commanded?  There was time before his death.

But nevermind if you don't want to commit to an answer.  I'm fine with that really.  I am a bit surprised anyone would still believe that though, to be honest.

I actually do think there are those who either haven't closely studied all the journals, writings, and statements made under oath by some of Joseph's wives who still do believe that he actually did not consummate any of his plural marriages or just refuse to believe the evidence.  I think it's rare to find anyone with a thorough knowledge of the evidence who still believes this. 

Many do not believe that any of Joseph's polyandrous marriages were consummated.  But there's no reason to believe that none of his plural marriages were especially when someone uses Jacob 2 as a reason for Joseph entering into them.  The excuse that he died too soon, is foolish to think, IMO.

But some still do (and apparently Scott is one of them?).  Meg Stout is another one (if you've read her material).

Each person has to do their own research and come to their own conclusions.

Edited September 25, 2017 by ALarson

[Pete Ahlstrom]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Special pleading about what?   That the church is true?

You really need a good theory of truth.  Here try the wikipedia version it is easier than the Stanford Encyclopedia

If you only knew how naive you are and what you refuse to even ponder.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflationary_theory_of_truth

 

 

Special pleading as in religion, and mormonism in particular, doesn't exist in the realm of where it can be falsified.  It is somehow in a special class.  But you already know that.  You continually go on and on about how religion is different from science and how religion is like describing your favorite color or why you fell in love with your wife.  The problem is that science is exposing religion as myth, so as a response, religion must be something special, in a different category all together, because obviously religion and mormonism cannot be wrong.  Your religious feelings or the "answers" you thought you got or get could not have come from within yourself, obviously.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, JulieM said:

So if he married to raise up seed, why wouldn't you believe that follows he would have been with his plural wives during the years they were married (to raise up seed)?  I'm just trying to figure out why you'd believe they didn't have relations to live the principle as specifically commanded?  There was time before his death.

I'm saying that with all he had to contend with: oppression, disloyalty, victimization of himself and his people, there was not occasion in his lifetime to rear families with other women. If he had come west with the saints and could have been left in relative peace, I firmly believe he would have reared many children with plural wives, just as Brigham Young did.

Quote

But nevermind if you don't want to commit to an answer.  I'm fine with that really.  I am a bit surprised anyone would still believe that though, to be honest.

Do not talk down to me. I did give you an answer, and I did commit to it, and you know it.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

The problem is that science is exposing religion as myth

While it's certainly true that many scriptural stories are not historical, that's a long way from "science exposing religion as myth".

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm saying that with all he had to contend with: oppression, disloyalty, victimization of himself and his people, there was not occasion in his lifetime to rear families with other women. If he had come west with the saints and could have been left in relative peace, I firmly believe he would have reared many children with plural wives, just as Brigham Young did.

Do not talk down to me. I did give you an answer, and I did commit to it, and you know it.

I didn't see where you answered either, but I think you don't want to give a direct answer to that question for some reason (asked twice in a very direct manner).  I was kind of following and interested to see if you'd answer too (it's pretty much a yes or no answer, but you refuse to answer using either of those).  This is probably a topic for another thread anyway (and, of course, no one has to answer questions directed at them on this board either).

Edited September 25, 2017 by ALarson

[Pete Ahlstrom]

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

While it's certainly true that many scriptural stories are not historical, that's a long way from "science exposing religion as myth".

We are on the track to the final destination.  Of course there will be hold-outs who refuse to believe what they see as the train continues to roll forth.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

 

Hmm, I guess I get what you're saying, but I don't know that marriage necessarily works in that way, or if it does that marriage alone will really help you get the opposite sex. What about having a daughter? What about growing up with sisters? Not everyone will get that chance, of course. Humanity is SO diverse that I'm not sure how you'd ever fully comprehend half of it, let alone all of it. No one woman is representative of every woman. And of course cultural differences are often more pronounced than gender differences. There are many hundreds of cultures that I will never really get. I'm married to a white woman from the midwest. I don't think that makes me really understand what it means to be a woman from Ghana. Or even a white woman from the midwest!

 

But with or without sealing gay couples in the temple, that experience is still not viable for most gay people.

 

Or maybe you see gender differences differently because you're of a different generation, with its own norms and culture.

 

I don't think single people really know half of humanity, and I don't think married people (opposite sex relationship) really know all of humanity.

If that's really the prerequisite to becoming gods, then I think God is going to have to teach us something more regardless of our life experiences - we will all fall terribly short of understanding much beyond our own noses.

Duh.

The objective is to get closer, advancing to understanding an "other" that is alien. The mere fact that you acknowledge that you do not understand the opposite sex makes the point for me.  One at a time works just fine and gets us closer to the objective.  No we are not gods in this life and not omniscient- that is hardly the point.  Yes I think there might be one or two more things to learn from God.

Very predictable post.  I don't get it because I am old.  Uh huh.  Yawn.  That works about as well as you don't get it because you are young.  So erase that part.

Your answer to that is easily anticipated and I already disagree with it.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Special pleading as in religion, and mormonism in particular, doesn't exist in the realm of where it can be falsified.  It is somehow in a special class.  But you already know that.  You continually go on and on about how religion is different from science and how religion is like describing your favorite color or why you fell in love with your wife.  The problem is that science is exposing religion as myth, so as a response, religion must be something special, in a different category all together, because obviously religion and mormonism cannot be wrong.  Your religious feelings or the "answers" you thought you got or get could not have come from within yourself, obviously.

No you are apparently illiterate.   Religion is a myth and that is fine.  Every written word is a myth in some sense.  You do not understand one iota about truth falsity or the philosophy of language, even though I keep sending the same articles.

You are totally unaware of 20th century philosophy and unwilling to even look at it.  That to me is willful ignorance, the unpardonable sin.

Falsification is a myth if you actually read the article I keep sending you.  There is nothing here but parroting the same irrelevant paradigm again and again.  It is not a special class it is a different language game.

No replies are necessary, have a nice life.  He who refuses to learn remains ignorant.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/04/04/religion-without-god/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

 

 

Edited September 25, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Gray]

16 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

We are on the track to the final destination.  Of course there will be hold-outs who refuse to believe what they see as the train continues to roll forth.

Science isn't on a mission to disprove religious belief. The core of most religious beliefs don't involve scientific questions to begin with.

[Gray]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Duh.

The objective is to get closer, advancing to understanding an "other" that is alien. The mere fact that you acknowledge that you do not understand the opposite sex makes the point for me.  One at a time works just fine and gets us closer to the objective.  No we are not gods in this life and not omniscient- that is hardly the point.  Yes I think there might be one or two more things to learn from God.

Okay, so how much closer does getting married to an opposite sex person get us to understanding half of humanity? Microscopically closer? What are you personally missing out on by not being married to a gay man, or a Mongolian woman, or a homeless person, or military vet? I don't know if marriage is really the tool to get to know the "other". And to me that's not what "opposition in all things" is about anyway.

But, getting to know the other strikes me as a very good doctrinal principal. But what about service as a means to that end?

 

Quote

Very predictable post.  I don't get it because I am old.  Uh huh.  Yawn.  That works about as well as you don't get it because you are young.  So erase that part

Thank you for saying that I'm young. I'm going to hold on to that with a death grip. 

It wasn't meant as a dig. Every person is a product of their time and place. I'm just saying, gender differences were more important 50 years ago than they are today. Some of the things that seem so important to baby boomers make me scratch my head and think, what's the big deal? And so it goes, generation after generation.

 

Quote

Your answer to that is easily anticipated and I already disagree with it.

Okay, so we disagree. No biggy.

Edited September 25, 2017 by Gray

[Pete Ahlstrom]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No you are apparently illiterate.   Religion is a myth and that is fine.  Every written word is a myth in some sense.  You do not understand one iota about truth falsity or the philosophy of language, even though I keep sending the same articles.

You are totally unaware of 20th century philosophy and unwilling to even look at it.  That to me is willful ignorance, the unpardonable sin.

Falsification is a myth if you actually read the article I keep sending you.  There is nothing here but parroting the same irrelevant paradigm again and again.  It is not a special class it is a different language game.

No replies are necessary, have a nice life.  He who refuses to learn remains ignorant.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/04/04/religion-without-god/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

 

 

I'll remember to stay off your lawn.

[mfbukowski]

49 minutes ago, Gray said:

While it's certainly true that many scriptural stories are not historical, that's a long way from "science exposing religion as myth".

He doesn't get it and refuses to learn even this simple principle.  Oh well.

[Gray]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

He doesn't get it and refuses to learn even this simple principle.  Oh well.

In certain circles there's a fantasy that science exists primarily to embarrass religious people.

[Scott Lloyd]

44 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I didn't see where you answered either, but I think you don't want to give a direct answer to that question for some reason (asked twice in a very direct manner). 

Then you are blinded by your own stubbornness.

Quote

I was kind of following and interested to see if you'd answer too (it's pretty much a yes or no answer, but you refuse to answer using either of those).  This is probably a topic for another thread anyway (and, of course, no one has to answer questions directed at them on this board either).

I did give an answer. That you don't like my answer is not an excuse for falsely claiming that I didn't give one.

Don't be a jerk, ALarson; it's not becoming.

 

Edited September 25, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I did give an answer. That you don't like my answer is not an excuse for falsely claiming that I didn't give one.

I never said that I "don't like" what you stated.  You have every right to believe as you do.  However, you did not directly answer the question asked of you (twice):

You first answered:

Quote

"I said Joseph Smith was hounded and hated and murdered at an early age, leaving little or no opportunity to have children with plural wives. I said that his role was to receive the revelation instituting plural marriage and to teach it to others before being cut down in the prime of life."

That didn't really answer the question though.

Asked again, you stated:

Quote

"And I said subsequently that Joseph undoubtedly would have raised up seed by plural wives had he been allowed to remain alive long enough to do it." 

Once again, not really giving a direct answer to a direct question.  

So, do you believe that Joseph consummated any of his plural marriages? (A simple yes or no answer shouldn't be difficult to give here.)

(You don't have to answer if you don't want to, of course!)

I have no issue with Joseph consummating some of his plural marriages and I think it's quite odd anyone would have an issue with him doing so.  They were his wives afterall and if you are using Jacob 2 as a reason for him taking plural wives, it follows he would have.  Others had children with their plural wives in Nauvoo before Joseph's death, so plural marriages were consummated.  Joseph lived polygamy for years prior to his death (so the "he never had a chance" argument is silly, IMO).

Why would you believe he lived polygamy in a different manner from how he'd instructed others to live it?

Edited September 25, 2017 by ALarson

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

In certain circles there's a fantasy that science exists primarily to embarrass religious people.

I suppose.  That's pure idiocy. 

It baffles me that there are so many scientists who are totally ignorant AND uneducated in anything else.  It is like a fundamentalist religion they learned as a child and never advanced socially to get beyond it.  They have never heard of Kuhn or had any classes or the philosophy of science and regard that as unworthy of study because it is "The Humanities"

That is why I keep harping on Galileo and Bellarmine. Bellarmine ironically was expressing what he thought was a "scientific" view- geocentricism- because his science came from the bible.   He believed that Galileo was not only theologically wrong but scientifically wrong.

So Galileo goes to prison for the last years of his life- imagine what other discoveries he might have made, hundreds of years before they were actually made.  Who knows where science could be today if it were not for this tragedy!

And here we are 400 years later with the same question still confusing mankind.   It's just a total shame and I find it endlessly frustrating dealing with it.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I never said that I "don't like" what you stated.  You have every right to believe as you do.  However, you did not directly answer the question asked of you (twice):

You first answered:

That didn't really answer the question though.

Asked again, you stated:

Once again, not really giving a direct answer to a direct question.  

So, do you believe that Joseph consummated any of his plural marriages? (A simple yes or no answer shouldn't be difficult to give here.)

(You don't have to answer if you don't want to, of course!)

I have no issue with Joseph consummating some of his plural marriages and I think it's quite odd anyone would have an issue with him doing so.  They were his wives afterall and if you are using Jacob 2 as a reason for him taking plural wives, it follows he would have.  Others had children with their plural wives in Nauvoo before Joseph's death, so plural marriages were consummated.  Joseph lived polygamy for years prior to his death (so the "he never had a chance" argument is silly, IMO).

Why would you believe he lived polygamy in a different manner from how he'd instructed others to live it?

I thought there was a push to not hold the church leaders on a pedestal because, after all, they are ordinary men subject to making mistakes.  Joseph Smith, himself, wanted to dispel the myth that surrounded him and would do things to let people know that he was normal.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I thought there was a push to not hold the church leaders on a pedestal because, after all, they are ordinary men subject to making mistakes.  Joseph Smith, himself, wanted to dispel the myth that surrounded him and would do things to let people know that he was normal.

I think many still hold Joseph to a higher standard when it comes to how he lived polygamy.

I don't really understand doing that though.  Why would he have lived it differently than the other early Prophets and church leaders did?  If Joseph did not believe these marriages were to be consummated, then I'd have to wonder why he didn't discipline those men who had children with their plural wives while he was still living.  

But many members still have a double standard when it comes to Joseph's polygamy vs. Brigham's, for example.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think many still hold Joseph to a higher standard when it comes to how he lived polygamy.

I don't really understand doing that though.  Why would he have lived it differently than the other early Prophets and church leaders did?  If Joseph did not believe these marriages were to be consummated, then I'd have to wonder why he didn't discipline those men who had children with their plural wives while he was still living.  

But many members still have a double standard when it comes to Joseph's polygamy vs. Brigham's, for example.

It's a tough issue that brings out many different responses from meg stout like denial to fundamentalists who want to keep it going. However, I agree that we need to face the obvious.

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

It's a tough issue that brings out many different responses from meg stout like denial to fundamentalists who want to keep it going. 

She posted here for awhile and it was interesting.

I like to refer to her as "Meg...pass the meat platter....Stout" just for fun 

(That was a bizarre argument....the meat commerce one!)

Edited September 25, 2017 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm saying that with all he had to contend with: oppression, disloyalty, victimization of himself and his people, there was not occasion in his lifetime to rear families with other women. If he had come west with the saints and could have been left in relative peace, I firmly believe he would have reared many children with plural wives, just as Brigham Young did.

This.
The idea that Brigham changed plural marriage from Joseph's original intent is foolish.
I think Joseph consummated some plural marriages and not others, and it's a guessing game which is which.  The records aren't that specific, nor should they be.
Considering the vast majority of his marriages happened between 1842 & 1844, just two years, and there were nearly 30 wives just how much alone time with any wife do we think he had?
We read his journals and output for that time period.  He was consistently busy, in meetings, travelling, etc.

I too believe had he made it to Utah with the other saints he would have done just the same as Brigham, Heber, Orson Pratt, Parley, et al.

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think many still hold Joseph to a higher standard when it comes to how he lived polygamy.

I don't really understand doing that though.  Why would he have lived it differently than the other early Prophets and church leaders did?  If Joseph did not believe these marriages were to be consummated, then I'd have to wonder why he didn't discipline those men who had children with their plural wives while he was still living.  

But many members still have a double standard when it comes to Joseph's polygamy vs. Brigham's, for example.

You can probably thank Hales for that.
I don't think all marriages were consummated, perhaps not even most.
But a large number...sure.

[JLHPROF]

19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes indeed. 

The unchanging principle, applicable in all ages, is that God will temporarily implement plurality  of wives if and when He sees fit. 

That is the timeless lesson of Jacob 2.

 

This is a very temporal view.
Last I checked we believed in eternal marriage.

Regardless of whether God has it implemented on earth or not, if those marriages were for eternity then polygamy exists in the Celestial Kingdom and always will.