Polygamy & SSM Thread

[Darren10]

12 hours ago, JAHS said:

The Proclamation on the Family states:
"Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

Even though we don't know for sure how spirit babies are made, according to the above statement, apparently it does take a male and female married couple to produce them if the eternal identity and purpose of individuals is the same as the mortal purpose. 

Haha, I did not read this beforehand. I like your thinking.

But while I’m quoting you let me also ask those here that why is the family structure, that it is between man and woman, and gender roles, be so emphasized now if that’s all irrelevant in the eternities? Isn’t that like also saying that since we don’t know what charity is like in the eternities we really cannot judge uncharitable people? 

Edited February 1, 2018 by Darren10

[Darren10]

11 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you making assumptions about what that "eternal identity and purpose" are? I would suggest you are, but it's understandable because it's very natural to assume that premortal, mortal, and eternal identity are all the same.That quote from the proclamation doesn't say anything about sxual attraction, SSM, polygamy/polyandry. By saying "apparently" I think you are recognizing the assumptions yourself.

Is it possible for male and female to have eternal purpose that isn't linked to biological-style procreation?

It is taught that intelligences are eternal but spirits are created. I don't think we have any idea how those two concepts work together. IMO- the idea of "molding" spirits from existing intelligence makes more sense than "birthing" spirits from existing intelligence. If spirits are created via molding, then it's possible the things we think we understand about the eternal purpose of genders in creation aren't exactly what we assume them to be.

“Is it possible for male and female to have eternal purpose that isn't linked to biological-style procreation?” - Possible I guess but a better question would be is it “probable”. 

Quote

Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true

You tell me. 

[Gray]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The real question is how can we discuss it when political correctness prohibits half the discussion participants from participating?

The real question is freedom of religion and respect for others with different opinions and civility in discussions.  Those no longer exist. 

Nothing to discuss.    The reality is that SINCE nothing is know about family organization in the next life nor can it be realistically it is a moot point and ssm advocates get to fight an amorphous majority who are not allowed to say what they think so there IS and cannot be a real discussion.   That applies to many issues today and is why Trump got elected while the liberals were positive they were right because they yell the loudest and are usually the only voices one can hear through the din.

But loud voices are not votes or real opinions.

Best wishes and welcome to reality. 

Trump was elected with significant help from his Russian friends, and remains notably unpopular with most Americans. Just saying.

Politicking derailers are being thread banned.

[Darren10]

11 hours ago, JAHS said:

I really have doubts about an exalted couple having "endless celestial sex"...

WHAT??? That’s what being a god is all about, yo. 

/Running away in zig zag motions as a blogger friend used to say.

[Darren10]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Trump was elected with significant help from his Russian friends, and remains notably unpopular with most Americans. Just saying.

The Mueller has proven that conclusively. 

[Gray]

1 minute ago, Darren10 said:

The Mueller has proven that conclusively. 

Nothing I said has not been conclusively demonstrated. Mueller is focusing on criminal wrongdoing (obstruction of justice, money laundering, espionage, etc). He's not trying to find out if the Russians interfered - we know they did.

 

ETA: I don't want to get the thread locked so I'll leave it at that!

Edited February 1, 2018 by Gray

[Darren10]

8 hours ago, juliann said:

Using "by extension" to include women isn't advisable. When we have based our views of the afterlife on mortality, it is going to be a very male oriented picture because that is what we have now. Someone bringing up celestial "strip clubs" is all the proof we need for that.  So it is very hard to get out of the male view, but once that is done, things don't add up.

Some questions that must be answered to move past the question begging responses:

1. What is the pure love of Christ. 

2. Do we really believe that God loves us all equally. 

3. Are we to become divine? 

4. Is a sealing only between an exclusive group of people or are we being sealed into an inclusive heavenly family?

 

 

Whoohoo! Beer bongs and pizza every night?

1 Charity

2 Yes

3 Yes by living our covenants and through the Atonement

4 Exclusive group because it is by choice. The sealings do link all of humanity but will fully affect only those who live their covenants

Edited February 1, 2018 by Darren10

[Darren10]

7 hours ago, juliann said:

I can see this is not a comfortable topic since so many have already decided to talk about something else. 

So more questions:

1. What is an intelligence?

2. What is a spirit? 

3. How are spirits created? 

1 Me

2 Me

3 By my Heavenly Parents

[Darren10]

6 hours ago, juliann said:

Thanks, JLH. I pretty much agree with that. When I began to analyze how our ideas of a small nuclear family just don't compute when based on what we do think we know about the afterlife, I began to think there may be a solution for gays. Really, all we get hung up on here is the sex. I think for the most part, the only thing standing in the way of acknowledging there is no reason to believe there is sex or childbirth in the afterlife is....men.  But on other topics that are of extreme importance to us now, like some men's attachment to polygyny, is that all the women will really like it in heaven. The same can be said about sex in the reversal, it will be fine, nobody will care when we have the big heavenly picture. 

We also very much believe that God doesn't play favorites, he loves all equally. There won't be clusters of extra special love for a few lucky people. 

We always talk about sealings as a couple but when we break it down, we actually believe sealings apply to a heavenly family, to the point that is used to explain why people are sealed to their ancestors even though a generation is missing. 

So I see a picture of a heavenly family. I look to the Heavenly Council creating the earth and living things. A council can contain couples but it doesn't have to.  

When I see "gender" as eternal, it either mean high heels and make up, or it means gendered roles in creation. 

So when we stop trying to force fit sex into the eternities, we are left with a situation where love is the same towards all. That tells me that is like a covenant based life, we form groups to create. If JS was trying to build a celestial vision, this would make polygamy make sense....but only if polyandry was included. Once that was removed, it no longer is a full council which needs both sexes. 

Under this scenario, everyone is changed, not just gays, because our obsession with sex is only part of mortality. There supposedly being no blood in resurrected bodies should be the tip off, the hormones that make us want it will be gone. Thus, we all enter eternal life as equals. 

“I think for the most part, the only thing standing in the way of acknowledging there is no reason to believe there is sex or childbirth in the afterlife is....men.”

whoohoo, beer bongs and pizza every night...and strip clubs too! When I’m a god I’m going to kick off that puny man Zeus and show Mount Olympus to to really party!!! 

/The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire; The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire; The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire. Whoohooooooooo!

Edited February 1, 2018 by Darren10

[Darren10]

23 minutes ago, Gray said:

Nothing I said has not been conclusively demonstrated. Mueller is focusing on criminal wrongdoing (obstruction of justice, money laundering, espionage, etc). He's not trying to find out if the Russians interfered - we know they did.

 

ETA: I don't want to get the thread locked so I'll leave it at that!

I know, right, but let’s say it conclusively anyway: Trump won because of his Russian friends. Trump won because of his Russian friends. Trump won becaue of his Russian friends. Trump won because of his Russian friends. 

“we know they did” - Of course they did. They’ve been doing that since the 1950s. 

[mfbukowski]

48 minutes ago, Gray said:

Trump was elected with significant help from his Russian friends, and remains notably unpopular with most Americans. Just saying.

I was not defending him nor saying I supported him.  75% of the American public approved of his speech last night.  I think things are not what you think.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/viewers-approve-of-trumps-first-state-of-the-union-address-cbs-news-poll/

 

Edited February 1, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Darren10]

7 hours ago, juliann said:

Thanks, JLH. I pretty much agree with that. When I began to analyze how our ideas of a small nuclear family just don't compute when based on what we do think we know about the afterlife, I began to think there may be a solution for gays. Really, all we get hung up on here is the sex. I think for the most part, the only thing standing in the way of acknowledging there is no reason to believe there is sex or childbirth in the afterlife is....men.  But on other topics that are of extreme importance to us now, like some men's attachment to polygyny, is that all the women will really like it in heaven. The same can be said about sex in the reversal, it will be fine, nobody will care when we have the big heavenly picture. 

We also very much believe that God doesn't play favorites, he loves all equally. There won't be clusters of extra special love for a few lucky people. 

We always talk about sealings as a couple but when we break it down, we actually believe sealings apply to a heavenly family, to the point that is used to explain why people are sealed to their ancestors even though a generation is missing. 

So I see a picture of a heavenly family. I look to the Heavenly Council creating the earth and living things. A council can contain couples but it doesn't have to.  

When I see "gender" as eternal, it either mean high heels and make up, or it means gendered roles in creation. 

So when we stop trying to force fit sex into the eternities, we are left with a situation where love is the same towards all. That tells me that is like a covenant based life, we form groups to create. If JS was trying to build a celestial vision, this would make polygamy make sense....but only if polyandry was included. Once that was removed, it no longer is a full council which needs both sexes. 

Under this scenario, everyone is changed, not just gays, because our obsession with sex is only part of mortality. There supposedly being no blood in resurrected bodies should be the tip off, the hormones that make us want it will be gone. Thus, we all enter eternal life as equals. 

“We also very much believe that God doesn't play favorites, he loves all equally. There won't be clusters of extra special love for a few lucky people.”

Isn’t some love conditional? 

“21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.”

John 14

“27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.”

John 16

“22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

Mathew 7

That last one would sting a bit to anyone who hears Jesus tell him or her that. 

“but only if polyandry was included”

Not really. In still do not see anything wrong with the notion that a woman will still end up with one man in the eternities. Being God, in the LDS understanding, is man and woman together. I know of no doctrine which declares two Heavenly Fathers. Jesus is very much our Heavenly Father in the sense that He is the perfect example of our [one] Heavenly Father and that He was the primary person in the creation. But while there absolutely has been declared a Heavenly Mother to exist in LDS theology, I am unaware of more than one Father for us all. 

Edited February 1, 2018 by Darren10

[mfbukowski]

33 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

“I think for the most part, the only thing standing in the way of acknowledging there is no reason to believe there is sex or childbirth in the afterlife is....men.”

whoohoo, beer bongs and pizza every night...and strip clubs too! When I’m a god I’m going to kick off that puny man Zeus and show Mount Olympus to to really party!!! 

/The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire; The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire; The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire. Whoohooooooooo!

But yet men and women are exactly equal in everything and exactly the same.  No differences.  That's why you hear so much about the sexual harassment of men lately.

Edited February 1, 2018 by mfbukowski

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Not exactly.

For a person with a testimony of Joseph Smith and the restoration (and the doctrines that came with it) they place their faith in God as demonstrated in the restoration.

 

You realize to see it that way is putting your faith more than in God.   What if the restoration doesn't demonstrate God completely or in some cases correctly?  If Joseph Smith started the restoration does it mean everything he said about God is true?  Does it mean that everything since his day has gone smoothly and under God's direction?  It is quite possible that there was something to what Joseph had done (the restoration) and what we have now is not so inspired.  It's also possible that Joseph started something of a restoration and since the people have failed to take up the torch in the same way.  Or that Joseph started it and he himself led it in the wrong direction.  The possibilities are, in fact, endless.  It's silly to assume as you have, in my mind. 

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

So as far as the actions of the Church are concerned that only leaves a couple of choices:

1. I don't believe the restoration (ie Joseph, the Book of Mormon, the Church) came from God.  Which makes their opinion of whether the Church follows God irrelevant.
2. I do believe in the restoration, that God directed it.  Which leaves us with two choices:
   1. The Church was once directed by God but no longer is.  So it become necessary to decide when and why the change happened.
   2. The Church is still directed by God.  So we can still place faith in how it operates.

There are plenty of more choices of course, one being the Church is sometimes directed by God, in some ways, and sometimes is not, in many other ways.  I simply can't leave things as black and white, either/or as you have.  

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Faith in God vs Faith in the Church only matter if you don't believe the Church is God's church and then your opinion of how the Church operates is pretty meaningless from a religious perspective.

Not true at all.  The church is not God and never has been.  To assume as much is to place your faith in the Church over God.  I think you are greatly mistaken.  

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

 Just another outside observer.
But if you DO believe the Church was established by God you either have faith that God leads his Church or believe the Church is in apostasy.

Not really.  Black and white thinking works for many in the Church, I know.  But I don't see any value in leaving it so binary.  

[CV75]

8 hours ago, juliann said:

I think you would be hard pressed to find a sealed Mormon who doesn’t think they would love their spouse and children more than others because that is what we do here. I don’t think that is how charity or the true love of Christ works. 

I think there are many kinds of divine and godly love, and while the pure love of Christ encompasses them all, it does not replace or homogenize them all. Rather than "more" I would say "differently," just as parents can love all their children the same but differently. In the next life, I believe that we love more consciously and intentionally than we do here, and so sexual love (and as you pointed out, if there will be such a thing) would be chosen, directed and expressed appropriately.

[why me]

I think that we need to clarify the roles of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother in order to clarify the afterlife and the role of gender in the process. Once we figure this out, we can address the SSM issue more clearly and the role of women also more clearly in the afterlife. However all this may take some speculation on our parts.

Mormons have a heavenly mother which is most than what most churches believe. The catholics have the role of the virgin mary as the mother of christ. However, it is the mormons who claim two spiritual parents. Which says much about the mormons.

 

 

Edited February 1, 2018 by why me

[CV75]

15 hours ago, juliann said:

I can see this is not a comfortable topic since so many have already decided to talk about something else. 

So more questions:

1. What is an intelligence?

2. What is a spirit? 

3. How are spirits created? 

There are so many meanings and ways these three terms and concepts can be discussed, but I think we can all answer 1 and 2 as "me" (D&C 93:33), and on some level we always were (D&C 93:29). If you are speaking of the mechanics, the covenants rarely if ever get into the mechanics of anything, just the purpose, reason and meaning of why we are.

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, I'll point you to Pres. Nelson's remarks.

"Revelation" is an event or experience, not a letter.  All writings which we have which we characterize as "revelations" are "statements that claim revelation."

For some reason I'm unable to locate that quote.  Can you point out it's location?

 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

OD-1 and OD-2 both describe "revelation."  We don't know the precise nature and/or wording of those events/experiences (to Pres. Woodruff and Pres. Kimball, respectively).  But they are still plainly "revelations."

 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

All written "revelations" are an announcement that "revelation was had."  Again, God does not deliver letters to His prophets.  He inspires them, and they then can (though don't always) make a record of the revelation.

I must say, Smac, you have really enlightened me here.  Revelation is not God words delivered to his prophets, huh?  Sometimes his prophets write down words that say they were inspired about something that is revelation, but it is not revelation for them to write letters.  I do not believe I've seen it put so succinctly (pardon the sarcasm but this is really throwing me off, particularly considering what scripture says).  

 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Revelation is what Pres. Nelson described.  The event.  Again, God is not a mailman.

What's the event?  A strong confirming impression is an event that we rightly call revelation?  I think that is largely what President Hinckley described.  But again, that seems largely error prone.  So where do we go from here?  It seems clearly to me the leaders of the Church are men, who through their experience, are guided to see things a certain way.And that largely confirms their decisions.  Those decisions are revelation because they feel good about those decisions.  

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

The policy changes are not "key to the Church."  They affect a very, very small number of individuals.

I didn't say they were.  

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

And your preferences are noted, but not binding on the Brethren.

So you practice polygamy?  You object to the Church's ordination of black men?

Or do you, as I suspect, accept OD-1 and OD-2 as revelatory, even if they do not contain verbatim transcripts of the "words of God?"

I don't think polygamy nor the ban were what God wanted people to do.  So stopping those practices isn't revelation it's leaders of the Church finally coming to their senses, and by finally I mean each of those practices went on way, way, way, way too long.  So long they should have never started.  

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

In any event, what do you mean "I want the revelation?"  What if the "revelation" was a strong spiritual confirmation to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve enact the policy changes that had been developed and proposed?  How do you propose the Brethren to let you "see" that?

You've just conflated personal spiritual confirmation of another's thoughts as if it is revelation from God to His people.  If so, interesting.  

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

You apparently reject Pres. Nelson's recitation of the event.  Okay.  So what is it that you are looking to receive?

I gladly accept his impression of what happened is a genuine impression for him.  It really doesn't mean much for me.  If I'm supposed to just trust him, as he asks, then so be it.  But I dont' think God wants us to work that way.  

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not really.  "For we walk by faith, not by sight."  2 Cor. 5:7.  It's a question of faith.  It pretty much will always be a question of faith.

I disagree, it's much more faith relying to reject false teaching, in my view.  It's simply going along with another's perspective and is not walking by faith to do as you propose.  Don't get me wrong, sometimes going along with another's perspective can result in good things.  

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

We are dealing with a controversial issue.  A very controversial issue.  There are valid points on both sides.  So the Saints are tasked with choosing a side: A) the prophets and apostles, or B) those arrayed against the prophets and apostles.

The battle mindset is cute, but I reject it.  I dont' see it as either/or, black or white.  I see us all in this together.  

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

For me, this is a pretty easy call.  I think the Brethren are saying and doing things that are eminently congruent with the role of prophets and apostles.  They aren't doing anything obviously problematic.  They aren't calling for homosexuals to be stoned, or thrown off rooftops, or beheaded.  They are not saying that homosexuals must be hounded from our midst and shunned.  They are, instead, moving heaven and earth to accommodate people with SSA as much as possible, while also fulfilling the scriptural mandates that fall on them.

Thanks for your opinion.  I simply can't disagree more. 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

So in the absence of the Brethren being patently wrong, we are left with them being possibly wrong.  This seems, for me, a bit far-fetched.  All fifteen wrong about the same things?  At the same time?

 

15 humans can't be wrong about something at the same time?  You're take seems far-fetched to me.  What you would propose is infallibility.  There is no alternative to infallibility or to your view of all 15, currently 13, can't possibly be wrong about something at the same time.  

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Moreover, if they are wrong, then that is on them, really.  It's our job to sustain them in all that is right.  To the extent that we are asked to sustain them in something which A) they declare to be right, B) is controversial, and C) nevertheless will within the generalized parameters of the Restored Gospel, then I am going to go along with them.  Pretty much every time.  I have given these matters a lot of time and study and prayer and consideration, and I think what they are doing is right.  Unpopular, to be sure.  But still right.

I'm fine with your conclusion, smac.  It simply doesn't work on my end.  

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

So consider this my own variation of Pascal's Wager.  I choose to sustain the Brethren.  If they are wrong, then I am hard-pressed to believe that God will punish me for sustaining his servants in a decision that is reasonable, that is congruent with the scriptures, and that is presented with the unified voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  On the other hand, if the Brethren are right, then by sustaining them I . . . have done what God asks of us in the first place.  Either way, I win.

You are winning in the world, I see.  

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

These men, with literally centuries of experience in the Church between them (prayer, fasting, study, temple worship, discussion, seeking revelation, etc.), were all deluded?  About the exact same thing?

All fifteen have uniform "already determined beliefs on this matter" that are in perfect harmony?

This is, in your view, not only "possible," but also "likely?"

That is quite a stretch.

What about the contrary possibility?  That you and your "already determined beliefs" are in error?  Any chance of that?  Just food for thought.

Fair enough.  I could be wrong.  I'd wager each of us are wrong about something.  The brethren included.  

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

We have clear guidance from prophets and apostles.  They are telling us that they are seeking, and receiving, revelatory guidance.  They are saying these things in a unified voice.  

Ok.  trust them then. 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

If you are "quite happy and comfortable" to disregard their counsel, then I'll leave you to it.  I hope you have a change of heart, though.

Yes.  Trust.  Faith.  

I trust the scriptures.  I trust the unified voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  I'm comfortable with that.

It is quite possible, and perhaps likely on this topic, that it is God's will.

I can choose to listen to the Brethren on this, or to voices of those who are setting themselves up as being alternative and superior to those of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

You probably won't be surprised at where I end up.

Thanks,

-Smac

Have fun.  

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Again, I'll point you to Pres. Nelson's remarks.

"Revelation" is an event or experience, not a letter.  All writings which we have which we characterize as "revelations" are "statements that claim revelation."

For some reason I'm unable to locate that quote.  Can you point out it's location?

What quote?

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I must say, Smac, you have really enlightened me here. 

I'm not sensing much sincerity here.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Revelation is not God words delivered to his prophets, huh? 

Revelation can be specific "words."  Revelation can also take other forms, as I noted previously here.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sometimes his prophets write down words that say they were inspired about something that is revelation, but it is not revelation for them to write letters. 

What?  Where are you getting this?

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I do not believe I've seen it put so succinctly (pardon the sarcasm but this is really throwing me off, particularly considering what scripture says).  

Then ditch the sarcasm and let's play it straight.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Revelation is what Pres. Nelson described.  The event.  Again, God is not a mailman.

What's the event?  A strong confirming impression is an event that we rightly call revelation? 

Again, revelation can take many forms, as I noted previously here.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think that is largely what President Hinckley described.  But again, that seems largely error prone. 

That's a bold, yet entirely unsubstantiated, statement.  I disagree with it.  Absent any substantive explanation as to the basis for your assertion, there's not much to say in response to it.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So where do we go from here? 

You speak as if you have just made a point.  I don't think you have.  

Let's take a look at Pres. Nelson's remarks:

Quote

We sustain 15 men who are ordained as prophets, seers, and revelators. When a thorny problem arises—and they only seem to get thornier each day—these 15 men wrestle with the issue, trying to see all the ramifications of various courses of action, and they diligently seek to hear the voice of the Lord. After fasting, praying, studying, pondering, and counseling with my Brethren about weighty matters, it is not unusual for me to be awakened during the night with further impressions about issues with which we are concerned. And my Brethren have the same experience.

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together and share all the Lord has directed us to understand and to feel individually and collectively. And then we watch the Lord move upon the President of the Church to proclaim the Lord’s will.

This prophetic process was followed ... with the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries. Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter. Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration. And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process, and so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.

Your flippant disregard of this issue is odd.  What Pres. Nelson describes was an extensive and involved process. 

Fifteen men, each of them apostles of Jesus Christ, "wrestle{d} with the issue."

They tried "to see all the ramifications of various courses of action" they could take.

They "diligently {sought} to hear the voice of the Lord."

They fasted.

They prayed.

They studied.

They pondered.

They counseled with each other.

They considered this matter "with compassion for all, and especially for the children."

They studied "God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children."

They "considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise."

They "met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration."

And then came the inspiration to the Presiding High Priest "to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord."  Pres. Nelson declarred and characterized this as "revelation."

The decision of the Brethren was not off-the-cuff.  Their consideration of this issue was not cursory.  The went to great lengths to devote time and study and discussion and prayer and fasting and so on to this issue.  And at the end they reached a decision, promulgated through the Presiding High Priest and sustained by the other fourteen apostles that head the Church.

And in response to all of these efforts, you suggest "But again, that seems largely error prone.  So where do we go from here?"

You are breezing past way, way too much.  

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It seems clearly to me the leaders of the Church are men, who through their experience, are guided to see things a certain way.

Right back atcha.  "It seems stemelbow is a man, who through his experience, is guided to see things in a certain way."  Do you see what you are doing here?  You are dismissing the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve by accusing them of acting principally or entirely on their own biases and emotions and prejudices.  But your accusation against them is itself a demonstration of you acting principally or entirely on biases and emotions and prejudices.

Do you not perceive the problem here?  You are faulting the Brethren for doing what you are doing at this very moment, in spades.  Moreover, you are faulting the Brethren for relaying merely on "their experience" when President Nelson has in fact described a very long and studied and faithful effort by them to discern God's will on this matter.  

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

And that largely confirms their decisions.  Those decisions are revelation because they feel good about those decisions.  

Sigh.  You aren't interacting with what Pres. Nelson described.  At all.

And you are indulging in the very sort of behavior your are (falsely) attributing to the Brethren.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

In any event, what do you mean "I want the revelation?"  What if the "revelation" was a strong spiritual confirmation to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve enact the policy changes that had been developed and proposed?  How do you propose the Brethren to let you "see" that?

You've just conflated personal spiritual confirmation of another's thoughts as if it is revelation from God to His people.  If so, interesting.  

"Conflated?"  Do you really think I am saying anything new or unique here?

You seem to have a very selective and unreasoned definition of "revelation."  Anything that deviates from your personal expectations is not "revelation."  With respect, I encourage you to give this matter some further study.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

You apparently reject Pres. Nelson's recitation of the event.  Okay.  So what is it that you are looking to receive?

I gladly accept his impression of what happened is a genuine impression for him. 

But he didn't just describe his own experience.  He described the experience of the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It really doesn't mean much for me. 

The words of an apostle of Jesus Christ describing a revelatory experience involving the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve "doesn't mean much" to you?

Well, okay.  I hope you reconsider that at some point.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If I'm supposed to just trust him, as he asks, then so be it.  But I dont' think God wants us to work that way.  

I don't think that's the way it is supposed to work.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Not really.  "For we walk by faith, not by sight."  2 Cor. 5:7.  It's a question of faith.  It pretty much will always be a question of faith.

I disagree, it's much more faith relying to reject false teaching, in my view. 

I don't understand.  What "false teaching" are you talking about?

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's simply going along with another's perspective and is not walking by faith to do as you propose.  Don't get me wrong, sometimes going along with another's perspective can result in good things.  

Prophetic counsel is not, I think, reasonably reduced to "another's perspective."

These men have stewardship over us.  They have keys, and the right to receive revelation for the Church.  We are supposed to listen to them.  We are supposed to sustain them.  We are supposed to seek out personal revelation as to what they are saying.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

We are dealing with a controversial issue.  A very controversial issue.  There are valid points on both sides.  So the Saints are tasked with choosing a side: A) the prophets and apostles, or B) those arrayed against the prophets and apostles.

The battle mindset is cute, but I reject it.  I dont' see it as either/or, black or white.  I see us all in this together.  

You just publicly accused Pres. Nelson of spreading "false teaching."  I'm hard-pressed to find a more stark example of publicly speaking evil of the Lord's anointed.  I encourage you to consider Elder Oaks' remarks on this issue.

"All in this together," eh?  With friends like these...

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

For me, this is a pretty easy call.  I think the Brethren are saying and doing things that are eminently congruent with the role of prophets and apostles.  They aren't doing anything obviously problematic.  They aren't calling for homosexuals to be stoned, or thrown off rooftops, or beheaded.  They are not saying that homosexuals must be hounded from our midst and shunned.  They are, instead, moving heaven and earth to accommodate people with SSA as much as possible, while also fulfilling the scriptural mandates that fall on them.

Thanks for your opinion.  I simply can't disagree more. 

Our discussion is winding down, then.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

15 humans can't be wrong about something at the same time? 

Fifteen humans who are also prophets and apostles, who have stewardship and priesthood keys to receive revelation for the entire Church.

Fiften prophets and apostles who gave this matter extensive thought, and prayer, and fasting, and attended the temple, and discussed it amongst themselves.

Theoretically yes, it is still possible for them to err.  Unlikely, though.  

Meanwhile, it is also possible for you to be "be wrong," correct?  So why should I put aside the unified and unanimous decision of the Brethren, based as it was on study and prayer and fasting and what not, and instead accept to the opinions of someone I don't know, someone who has no stewardship over me, someone who is publicly speaking evil of the Lord's anointed while doing so anonymously and behind a pseudonym, someone who has not demonstrated anything close to the efforts to sort out this issue as described by Pres. Nelson?

As between the reasoned and reasonable efforts of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to discern the will of God on this issue, and yours, why should I give your perspective more credence than theirs?

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You're take seems far-fetched to me.  What you would propose is infallibility. 

Nope.  Error is still possible.  But under the circumstances described by Pres. Nelson, it's just not probable.

Meanwhile, what about you?  Do you believe you are infallible?  That your understand of God's will is superior to that of the unified voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve?  It seems so.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

There is no alternative to infallibility or to your view of all 15, currently 13, can't possibly be wrong about something at the same time.  

Except that is not my view.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Moreover, if they are wrong, then that is on them, really.  It's our job to sustain them in all that is right.  To the extent that we are asked to sustain them in something which A) they declare to be right, B) is controversial, and C) nevertheless will within the generalized parameters of the Restored Gospel, then I am going to go along with them.  Pretty much every time.  I have given these matters a lot of time and study and prayer and consideration, and I think what they are doing is right.  Unpopular, to be sure.  But still right.

I'm fine with your conclusion, smac.  It simply doesn't work on my end.  

I can respect that.  I don't understand it, but I'll leave you to it.  I hope you reconsider your position at some point.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

These men, with literally centuries of experience in the Church between them (prayer, fasting, study, temple worship, discussion, seeking revelation, etc.), were all deluded?  About the exact same thing?

All fifteen have uniform "already determined beliefs on this matter" that are in perfect harmony?

This is, in your view, not only "possible," but also "likely?"

That is quite a stretch.

What about the contrary possibility?  That you and your "already determined beliefs" are in error?  Any chance of that?  Just food for thought.

Fair enough.  I could be wrong.  I'd wager each of us are wrong about something.  The brethren included.  

Indeed.  The Brethren are fallible.  They can make mistakes.  But they seem to have done pretty much everything possible to reach a decision that comports with the will of God.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

We have clear guidance from prophets and apostles.  They are telling us that they are seeking, and receiving, revelatory guidance.  They are saying these things in a unified voice.  

Ok.  trust them then. 

Thanks, I guess.

My trust in them is not based on blind faith.  Or on random chance.  They are in positions of authority.  We are supposed to sustain them.  And in this issue, Pres. Nelson has explained that they went to great lengths to seek out the will of God regarding it.  And their decision was based on revelation to the Presiding High Priest, and constitutes the unified decision of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  That, to me, is a big deal.

So yes, I trust them.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

If you are "quite happy and comfortable" to disregard their counsel, then I'll leave you to it.  I hope you have a change of heart, though.

Yes.  Trust.  Faith.  

I trust the scriptures.  I trust the unified voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  I'm comfortable with that.

It is quite possible, and perhaps likely on this topic, that it is God's will.

I can choose to listen to the Brethren on this, or to voices of those who are setting themselves up as being alternative and superior to those of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

You probably won't be surprised at where I end up.

Have fun.  

It's not a matter of "fun."  I don't enjoy seeing my faith receive false accusations of bigotry and hatred (or even "false teachings"), particularly when I consider the character and caliber of the men who are tasked with making decisions on difficult and controversial issues.

Nobody enjoys being accused of such things.  But I stand by the Brethren on this one.  I reject the accusations being leveled against them.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What quote?

I'm not sensing much sincerity here.

Revelation can be specific "words."  Revelation can also take other forms, as I noted previously here.

What?  Where are you getting this?

Then ditch the sarcasm and let's play it straight.

Again, revelation can take many forms, as I noted previously here.

Let me step back to your previous explanation:

Quote

 

Again, I'll point you to Pres. Nelson's remarks.

"Revelation" is an event or experience, not a letter.  All writings which we have which we characterize as "revelations" are "statements that claim revelation."

 

If revelation is an event or experience and not a letter, then how are we possibly claiming revelations are statements that claim revelation?  Look, if we take the pronouncements of revelation in the D&C as an example, they tell us, straight up, "Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet" (quoting the heading for Section 1).  So here we have a letter, that you say is not revelation, because revelation is not a letter.  It's as if the only revelation, according to your explanation here is the quotation that this is revelation given through the prophet, yet that can't be revelation either, because it's part of the letter, but then it has to be revelation because it is a statement that claims revelation.  

 

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's a bold, yet entirely unsubstantiated, statement.  I disagree with it.  Absent any substantive explanation as to the basis for your assertion, there's not much to say in response to it.

No problem. In what you've described as revelation I can't see anything to say the opposite.  It must be a very error prone process.  

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You speak as if you have just made a point.  I don't think you have.  

Let's take a look at Pres. Nelson's remarks:

Your flippant disregard of this issue is odd.  What Pres. Nelson describes was an extensive and involved process. 

Fifteen men, each of them apostles of Jesus Christ, "wrestle{d} with the issue."

They tried "to see all the ramifications of various courses of action" they could take.

They "diligently {sought} to hear the voice of the Lord."

They fasted.

They prayed.

They studied.

They pondered.

They counseled with each other.

They considered this matter "with compassion for all, and especially for the children."

They studied "God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children."

They "considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise."

They "met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration."

And then came the inspiration to the Presiding High Priest "to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord."  Pres. Nelson declarred and characterized this as "revelation."

The decision of the Brethren was not off-the-cuff.  Their consideration of this issue was not cursory.  The went to great lengths to devote time and study and discussion and prayer and fasting and so on to this issue.  And at the end they reached a decision, promulgated through the Presiding High Priest and sustained by the other fourteen apostles that head the Church.

And in response to all of these efforts, you suggest "But again, that seems largely error prone.  So where do we go from here?"

You are breezing past way, way too much.  

Nah...l took it all in and then concluded it seems to be an error possible process.  And that should be expected, afterall we are to reject the notion of infallibility.  But you say, they simply could not be mistaken, all 15 of them.  That would require infallibility.  The added issue here is the policy change doesn't pass the smell test, from the very start.  And apparently, we are to use our interior spiritual drive to determine for ourselves.  Apparently my own conclusion is different from yours.  But, what are we testing?  You say the words of the policy aren't revelation, but revelation was had.  I can only test the policy itself.  You seem to think I ought to just trust that these mortals are speaking Gods willb ecause they say so.  

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Right back atcha.  "It seems stemelbow is a man, who through his experience, is guided to see things in a certain way."  Do you see what you are doing here?  You are dismissing the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve by accusing them of acting principally or entirely on their own biases and emotions and prejudices.  But your accusation against them is itself a demonstration of you acting principally or entirely on biases and emotions and prejudices.

Well.  duh.  How is stating this obvious meaningful here?  As I said it's all an error prone process.  We each are going to be making some big ol fat mistakes along the way because of it.  

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Do you not perceive the problem here?  You are faulting the Brethren for doing what you are doing at this very moment, in spades.  Moreover, you are faulting the Brethren for relaying merely on "their experience" when President Nelson has in fact described a very long and studied and faithful effort by them to discern God's will on this matter.  

You are mistaken.  I am disagreeing with the brethren's conclusion.  that is not faulting the brethren.  I, as you may recall, do not employ the notion of infallibility as have described you do.  

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sigh.  You aren't interacting with what Pres. Nelson described.  At all.

I can't.  He won't respond to me.  How could I possibly interact with what he described when he just says it and leaves me on my own?

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And you are indulging in the very sort of behavior your are (falsely) attributing to the Brethren.

I hope you see clearly, that is my point.  We're all just working with what we have, the brethren included.  

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Conflated?"  Do you really think I am saying anything new or unique here?

You seem to have a very selective and unreasoned definition of "revelation."  Anything that deviates from your personal expectations is not "revelation."  With respect, I encourage you to give this matter some further study.

You haven't even heard nor cared to ask my definition of revelation.  I have asked you, and your thoughts on Pres Nelson's thoughts on the topic.  Sadly, as you've stated it, I find it a nearly incoherent explanation, as I've previously described in response.  

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But he didn't just describe his own experience.  He described the experience of the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

Surely you see the problem here?  

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The words of an apostle of Jesus Christ describing a revelatory experience involving the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve "doesn't mean much" to you?

Well, okay.  I hope you reconsider that at some point.

I don't think that's the way it is supposed to work.

I don't understand.  What "false teaching" are you talking about?

Prophetic counsel is not, I think, reasonably reduced to "another's perspective."

These men have stewardship over us.  They have keys, and the right to receive revelation for the Church.  We are supposed to listen to them.  We are supposed to sustain them.  We are supposed to seek out personal revelation as to what they are saying.

Yep.  That's my point.  Sorry I'm skipping a bit.  I simply can't go *** for tat here on everything said and expect any other result than what we've had in the past--tons of talking past each other, with continued missing the point.  

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You just publicly accused Pres. Nelson of spreading "false teaching."  I'm hard-pressed to find a more stark example of publicly speaking evil of the Lord's anointed.  I encourage you to consider Elder Oaks' remarks on this issue.

I really struggle with your flare for the dramatics. On one hand I find it endearing, on the other I find it inhibiting communication.  

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"All in this together," eh?  With friends like these...

Our discussion is winding down, then.

Fifteen humans who are also prophets and apostles, who have stewardship and priesthood keys to receive revelation for the entire Church.

Fiften prophets and apostles who gave this matter extensive thought, and prayer, and fasting, and attended the temple, and discussed it amongst themselves.

Theoretically yes, it is still possible for them to err.  Unlikely, though.  

Meanwhile, it is also possible for you to be "be wrong," correct?  So why should I put aside the unified and unanimous decision of the Brethren, based as it was on study and prayer and fasting and what not, and instead accept to the opinions of someone I don't know, someone who has no stewardship over me, someone who is publicly speaking evil of the Lord's anointed while doing so anonymously and behind a pseudonym, someone who has not demonstrated anything close to the efforts to sort out this issue as described by Pres. Nelson?
 

If you think I've suggested in anyway you should listen to me over the brethren you are greatly mistaken.  

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As between the reasoned and reasonable efforts of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to discern the will of God on this issue, and yours, why should I give your perspective more credence than theirs?

Nope.  Error is still possible.  But under the circumstances described by Pres. Nelson, it's just not probable.

Meanwhile, what about you?  Do you believe you are infallible?  That your understand of God's will is superior to that of the unified voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve?  It seems so.

Except that is not my view.

I can respect that.  I don't understand it, but I'll leave you to it.  I hope you reconsider your position at some point.

Indeed.  The Brethren are fallible.  They can make mistakes.  But they seem to have done pretty much everything possible to reach a decision that comports with the will of God.

Thanks, I guess.

My trust in them is not based on blind faith.  Or on random chance.  They are in positions of authority.  We are supposed to sustain them.  And in this issue, Pres. Nelson has explained that they went to great lengths to seek out the will of God regarding it.  And their decision was based on revelation to the Presiding High Priest, and constitutes the unified decision of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  That, to me, is a big deal.

So yes, I trust them.

It's not a matter of "fun."  I don't enjoy seeing my faith receive false accusations of bigotry and hatred (or even "false teachings"), particularly when I consider the character and caliber of the men who are tasked with making decisions on difficult and controversial issues.

Nobody enjoys being accused of such things.  But I stand by the Brethren on this one.  I reject the accusations being leveled against them.

Thanks,

-Smac

Alright.  So, it seemed you made a point earlier of suggesting that the 15 brethren couldn't possibly make a mistake "This seems, for me, a bit far-fetched.  All fifteen wrong about the same things?  At the same time?"  I suppose we can trust that since there are 15 of them, they are right no matter what.  But that's not how I operate.  It appears you are suggesting that the 15 could all be wrong about something, but it's so unlikely a possibility in your view, that you might as well trust them anyway.  I don't swing that way.  But I appreciate the conversation.  I do think you've helped me understand the mindset of many of my fellow Mormons, perhaps even Pres Nelson included.  If true universally of Mormons then I may have a pretty big problem here.  Because what you describe is not only problematic to me on many levels (some of which I've tried to point out here) but it also means I can't see that thinking leading to that which I think is important.  

[smac97]

Stemelbow,

If revelation is an event or experience and not a letter, then how are we possibly claiming revelations are statements that claim revelation?  

==I encourage you to give this matter some study.

==Recorded revelations are not always verbatim recitations of specific wording given by God.  An example of this would be D&C 109, the dedicatory prayer for the Kirtland Temple, which Joseph Smith said "was given to him by revelation."

==Consider the next section, D&C 110, which includes narrative elements in the voice of Joseph Smith (v. 1-3) as a preface for verbatim quotes attributed to God (v. 4-10).  The remaining verses (11-16) return to a narrative in the voice of Joseph Smith.

==I submit that the entirety of D&C 110 is "revelation," even though parts of it are not verbatim quotes of the words of God.

Look, if we take the pronouncements of revelation in the D&C as an example, they tell us, straight up, "Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet" (quoting the heading for Section 1).  

==Yes.  But look at D&C 2.  It's "an extract from Joseph Smith’s history relating the words of the angel Moroni to Joseph Smith the Prophet."

==I submit the entirety fo D&C 2 is "revelation," even though parts of it are not verbatim quotes of the words of God.

==We could go on like this through most of the scriptures and reach the same result.

So here we have a letter, that you say is not revelation, because revelation is not a letter.  

==Oh, brother.  I thought this was a serious discussion.  My bad.

Nah...l took it all in and then concluded it seems to be an error possible process.  And that should be expected, afterall we are to reject the notion of infallibility.  But you say, they simply could not be mistaken, all 15 of them.

==No, I'm not saying that.

The added issue here is the policy change doesn't pass the smell test, from the very start. 

==Yet another public accusation against Pres. Nelson, I think.

So, it seemed you made a point earlier of suggesting that the 15 brethren couldn't possibly make a mistake.

==No, I'm not saying that.

==We're clearly not communicating well.  Let's call it a day.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

On 1/31/2018 at 9:28 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

I want to respond to a couple of statements made by Julianne from the now closed "Weed" thread, because she absolutely nails it. She is spot on and I think the discussion at this level needs to occur before any progress can be made on the SSM issue.

She wrote...

Speaking as a straight, white, man, I recognize that I come to the traditional church teachings of priesthood, sealing, polygamy/polyandry, and SSM from a certain privileged position. The church's teachings and practices benefit me and they always have. Even though there is little to no evidence for how celestial families will actually be organized and function in the CK I used to think I had it all figured out. Obviously, I thought, marriage is essential to have legal physical intimacy which is necessary for creating offspring with one or multiple wives. Yet there is no firm teaching about how spirits are created. Are they born like a baby is born into mortality? There is no evidence or teaching for that, but it is widely assumed. That assumption then justifies polygamy while discrediting polyandry and even SSM. After all, if the entire purpose is to create spirit offspring and it is thought that it happens in a way similar to creating biological offspring, then it makes sense. But that is ALL based on assumptions.

Based on these assumptions many are willing to condemn others to lives (and possibly even an eternity) of loneliness.

So (we) don't even know what the afterlife looks like. It is unknown. Yet we think (we) have enough information to condemn and judge others, and since most of us come at it from positions of privilege, we are in the position to enforce our dogma upon the less privileged. The church is not unique in behaving this way. It is how society has always worked. But recognizing the assumptions for what they are and being humble about how much we really don't know, can help society improve.

Julianne also stated...

How can one categorically dismiss SSM when there is little to nothing known about family organization in the next life, even regarding a variety of heterosexual family organizations. Which sealings will be valid? Polygamy/polyandry? Only those which benefit men? Who are the children sealed to? There is a lot of "The Lord will work it out" mentality, which is fine because it acknowledges a lack of understanding and knowledge. The problem comes when one then loses all humility and attempts to define how family relationships will or will not work for other people. I agree with Julianne that the polygamy/polyandry topic is closely tied to the SSM topic and must be ironed out.

So maybe this can be a thread that can be commented on instead of derailing other threads when this subject comes up.

 

*Julianne, I hope I didn't misunderstand or misrepresent you. I really appreciated where you were trying to take the discussion.

Brilliant points by @juliann and great follow up summary by you, @HappyJackWagon.  Thank you.