Reconciling bruce r. McConkie

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Common sense I would think.
I missed the part where God is ok with sin if it's commanded by someone with a prophetic title.

God allegedly commanded Abraham to kill his son.  And the OT has all sorts of stuff like that in it. God was even sad he created humans so he decided to kill them all but for Noah and his family.  JS, when trying to persuade Nancy Rigdon to marry him said what even God commands it right.  At times God says though shalt not kill but other times he says destroy. Such a fickle God really.  So yea a someone with a title of prophet has commanded all sorts of stupid bad things. 

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Given the track record of prophets I will stick to my own critical thinking skills and inner compass.

Given your posts about the gospel I'll stick to the prophets. 

Quote

God allegedly commanded Abraham to kill his son.  And the OT has all sorts of stuff like that in it. God was even sad he created humans so he decided to kill them all but for Noah and his family.  JS, when trying to persuade Nancy Rigdon to marry him said what even God commands it right.  At times God says though shalt not kill but other times he says destroy. Such a fickle God really.  So yea a someone with a title of prophet has commanded all sorts of stupid bad things. 

So basically anything you don't like can't be from God.
Got it.

Edited August 2, 2021 by JLHPROF

[bOObOO]

39 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So basically anything you don't like can't be from God.
Got it.

That point I think is at least reasonable.  Usually we think we should like only what we think is good, while we don't like what we think is bad.  And we associate God with good things, while Satan is associated with bad/evil things.

So usually we think God is associated only with what we think is good and what we like.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Given your posts about the gospel I'll stick to the prophets. 

So basically anything you don't like can't be from God.
Got it.

Nope.  If God tells me I will follow him. When someone says I should do it because they say God is telling them not so much.  Sort of like Nancy Rigdon felt about the tripe Joseph Smith was telling her. Smart lady.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

So basically anything you don't like can't be from God.
Got it.

And you ignored my point.  God allegedly through prophets has told people to do  some really crappy things.  You said this does not happen.  You clearly are wrong. The man you believe was the prophet of the restoration told Nancy Rigdon that God could command and do whatever he want. Small catch. His position was God was speaking through him.  

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

And you ignored my point.  God allegedly through prophets has told people to do  some really crappy things.  You said this does not happen.  You clearly are wrong.

No, I'm saying they may not be as "crappy" as you think they are.  Unless you know as much as God.

Quote

The man you believe was the prophet of the restoration told Nancy Rigdon that God could command and do whatever he want. 

Bit of a paraphrase there 

[MrShorty]

22 hours ago, JAHS said:

I'm not talking about sin; I am talking about church doctrines. I don't know of any prophet that has told me to sin.

In those sexology circles I frequent, this topic is usually all about sin, but, you are correct, it is not prophets telling us to openly sin. It is almost always about prophets calling something sin that is not sin. It usually comes down to, "if a prophet can incorrectly or overzealously call oral sex or the use of birth control a sin, what other things (same sex marriage, for example) are they calling "sin" that is really not sin.

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

 "if a prophet can incorrectly or overzealously call oral sex or the use of birth control a sin, what other things (same sex marriage, for example) are they calling "sin" that is really not sin.

Do you have some scriptural or doctrinal evidence that they aren't sinful?  Sincerely curious.
Seems like a pretty consistent teaching to me.

[MrShorty]

I'm not sure which specific issue you want to explore. In any case, how much does consistency matter in determining what is true? I think consistency means something, but I think it is possible to be consistently wrong.

[pogi]

On 8/3/2021 at 9:58 AM, JLHPROF said:

Seems like a pretty consistent teaching to me.

It is not consistently taught anymore.   Bishops were given explicit instruction to not even talk or ask about it in 1982.

Even though the handbook of instruction clearly states that "Members who violate the law of chastity or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline".  Yet, if you ask your bishop about your practice of oral sex, Bishops are counseled to "not pursue the matter..." according to a second letter sent out in 1982 as a follow up after backlash and complaints from members.   No discipline.  If no discipline, then no violation of the law of chastity as is instructed and outlined  in the handbook of instructions. 

Also, in regards to the part which states that those who "influence other to do so are subject to Church discipline".  LDS sex therapists are not disciplined for teaching and encouraging oral sex in marriage (if that is what they are into).  I listened Radio West a couple weeks ago about this subject where one LDS sex therapist was excommunicated.  The reasoning specifically stated that she was not disciplined for any of her counseling in sex therapy (including oral sex), but for her public opposition to church teachings on certain subjects such homosexual issues.  Maybe @BlueDreams could chime in on this one if she is still around.  It would be good to hear her perspective on this one. 

So, if oral sex truly is a violation of the law of chastity, first, how is anyone supposed to know if it is a sin who was born after 1982 when silence on the subject was instructed; second, why is not anyone being disciplined for the violation as the handbook instructs?  

I don't see any consistency. 

Edited August 4, 2021 by pogi

[pogi]

On 8/3/2021 at 9:58 AM, JLHPROF said:

Do you have some scriptural or doctrinal evidence that they aren't sinful?  Sincerely curious.
Seems like a pretty consistent teaching to me.

 

 

Quote

 

Children are one of the greatest blessings in life, and their birth into loving and nurturing families is central to God’s purposes for humanity. When husband and wife are physically able, they have the privilege and responsibility to bring children into the world and to nurture them. The decision of how many children to have and when to have them is a private matter for the husband and wife.

God has a plan for the happiness of all who live on the earth, and the birth of children in loving families is central to His plan. The first commandment He gave to Adam and Eve was to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:28). The scriptures declare, “Children are a heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Those who are physically able have the blessing, joy, and obligation to bear children and to raise a family. This blessing should not be postponed for selfish reasons.

Sexual relations within marriage are not only for the purpose of procreation, but also a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual ties between husband and wife.

Husband and wife are encouraged to pray and counsel together as they plan their families. Issues to consider include the physical and mental health of the mother and father and their capacity to provide the basic necessities of life for their children.

Decisions about birth control and the consequences of those decisions rest solely with each married couple. Elective abortion as a method of birth control, however, is contrary to the commandments of God.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/birth-control?lang=eng

 

 

The less official 1992 Encyclopedia of Mormonism, edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, explains that "if, for personal reasons, a couple prayerfully decides that having another child immediately is unwise, birth control may be appropriate."

Not even a hint that it is contrary to the commandments.  If anything it hints that it is not a sin in saying that "sexual relations within marriage are not only for the purpose of procreation, but also a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual ties between husband and wife".   What if a couple decides to have one child after prayerfully considering everything above?  This language suggests that they can have sexual relations beyond the birth of their 1 child as sex is not only for the purpose of procreation.  

I would say that the language above is no where consistent with previous language on the subject which explicitly called it a violation of commandment and sin. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Bishops were given explicit instruction to not even talk or ask about it in 1982.

Do you have a reference for this?

I believe you, just would like to see the wording

[pogi]

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Do you have a reference for this?

I believe you, just would like to see the wording

I first learned about it in the Radio West episode with Doug Fabrizio.  I am on a work computer right now and don't dare to do a google search with those words in it as our search content is monitored.  I will have to find a link later.  

 

[MrShorty]

@mfbukowski
I got this file from an lds Facebook group. I'm fairly certain the original Jan '82 letter has been purged from official church archived. Not sure if this one has as well.

Follow up of First Presidency letter regarding oral sex Oct-15-1982.pdf

[Navidad]

On 8/2/2021 at 10:55 AM, The Nehor said:

So a member of the First Presidency was in the area so he assumed that it was about the wagon train and decided that was a kill order?

Read Smith's sermons when he was in southern Utah at that time! They are eye-opening. I can understand why Lee would have assumed his fiery sermons were approved of by the prophet.

[BlueDreams]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

It is not consistently taught anymore.   Bishops were given explicit instruction to not even talk or ask about it in 1982.

Even though the handbook of instruction clearly states that "Members who violate the law of chastity or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline".  Yet, if you ask your bishop about your practice of oral sex, Bishops are counseled to "not pursue the matter..." according to a second letter sent out in 1982 as a follow up after backlash and complaints from members.   No discipline.  If no discipline, then no violation of the law of chastity as is instructed and outlined  in the handbook of instructions. 

Also, in regards to the part which states that those who "influence other to do so are subject to Church discipline".  LDS sex therapists are not disciplined for teaching and encouraging oral sex in marriage.  I listened Radio West a couple weeks ago about this subject where one LDS sex therapist was excommunicated.  The reasoning specifically stated that she was not disciplined for any of her counseling in sex therapy (including oral sex), but for her public opposition to church teachings on certain subjects such homosexual issues.  Maybe @BlueDreams could chime in on this one if she is still around.  It would be good to hear her perspective on this one. 

So, if oral sex truly is a violation of the law of chastity, first, how is anyone supposed to know if it is a sin who was born after 1982 when silence on the subject was instructed; second, why is not anyone being disciplined for the violation as the handbook instructs?  

I don't see any consistency. 

I pop in and out and haven't popped in for a bit. But I don't know what I would add to what you're saying. No, it's not sinful or treated as such nor have I've heard of a single bishop asking the married couple what they're doing in their homes as couples (in the sense of specific details). Heard of plenty  of other missteps and problematic counsel....but not that one. The letter and change on this seems to have been very effective and I hope long term that the change in policy that reduces extra questions in general to interviews (specifically temple ones) will do the  same. My understand is that its more about the underlying emotion and sense of connection and care in the acts than any act being wholesale off the table. 

I've never been in trouble or concern for doing sex therapy. Most bishops have been happy to have my expertise in their ward and prefer the "pick her brain for needed help" mode with me. And I haven't hidden when some of my views may not run in direct alignment with current church practice/assumptions. Most recently I got a basket of sweets from a bishop for the help I've done in their ward. So yeah, not worried about my standing at all. 

 

  With luv,

BD

Edited August 4, 2021 by BlueDreams

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

@mfbukowski
I got this file from an lds Facebook group. I'm fairly certain the original Jan '82 letter has been purged from official church archived. Not sure if this one has as well.

Follow up of First Presidency letter regarding oral sex Oct-15-1982.pdf 101.23 kB · 5 downloads

I can't open it

[Calm]

7 hours ago, MrShorty said:

@mfbukowski
I got this file from an lds Facebook group. I'm fairly certain the original Jan '82 letter has been purged from official church archived. Not sure if this one has as well.

Follow up of First Presidency letter regarding oral sex Oct-15-1982.pdf 101.23 kB · 7 downloads

This one might work, it does for me…

https://daymonsmith.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/1982-jan-5-oral-sex-letter.pdf

[MrShorty]

Sorry that the PDF did not work. Try this one. He doesn't have full text of both letters, but he does quote the important parts relative to the discussion. https://latterday-marriage.blogspot.com/2016/08/whats-word-on-oral-sex.html?m=1

[Tacenda]

I hope blood atonement is a teaching that is wrong. Not sure if I know, is it? https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/JournalOfDiscourses3/id/2845 Here's the excerpt in the Journal of Discourses.

[Islander]

On 7/14/2021 at 2:27 PM, CV75 said:

I don't feel I need to reconcile him.

I joined the Church in college (1975) and after I was ordained an Elder in 1977, I felt I had to know more, so I read Mormon Doctrine (cross references and everything) over the Spring Break. As a young and enthusiastic convert, a) I found his authoritative tone off-putting; b) some of his teachings incomplete; but c) on the whole his book very helpful in my quest to learn more doctrine. I had a testimony and experience with the Spirit, and plenty of experience with imperfect members and leaders, so the few relatively minor drawbacks didn't bother me. 

The gift of the Holy Ghost, among other things, helps us learn to know and do better.

I am also a convert and share in some of your experiences. In addition, we should remember that not everything that comes our of the mouth of man, whether a prophet or GA, is actually revelation. They are, after all, human, fallen and fallible being, just like the rest of us. Joseph made plenty of mistakes as a man, but the doctrine of the Kingdom was without error. It is hard for us at times to see the difference.

 

 

[Islander]

On 7/14/2021 at 4:12 PM, Fair Dinkum said:

So imagine you run into someone whom you view as an authority only to discover long into your relationship that 50% (Just using this as an example) of the information imparted to you to make life's decisions on was false information.  Does that not cut into the credibility of anything else this person might instruct you in? Example: A certain former politician has zero credibility with me because of his lies and belief in conspiracies.  He could almost say anything today to me and I would no more take him as being credible as  a known charlatan

Discerning the truth is part of the work and ministry of the Holy Spirit. So, regardless of the source, you are entitled to personal insights, guided by the Spirit and also your diligent search of the scriptures. You do not need counsel from anybody as a personal decision when you have access to the God of the universe, our Father in Heaven, to guide you in the process! There is no human wisdom that can surpass the wisdom of God:

"According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue..." 2 Pet. 1:3

[JLHPROF]

On 8/6/2021 at 8:55 AM, Tacenda said:

I hope blood atonement is a teaching that is wrong. Not sure if I know, is it? https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/JournalOfDiscourses3/id/2845 Here's the excerpt in the Journal of Discourses.

The principles behind blood atonement are correct ones.  As is often the case man's attempt to figure out implementation are the challenge.

[CV75]

On 8/8/2021 at 8:26 PM, Islander said:

I am also a convert and share in some of your experiences. In addition, we should remember that not everything that comes our of the mouth of man, whether a prophet or GA, is actually revelation. They are, after all, human, fallen and fallible being, just like the rest of us. Joseph made plenty of mistakes as a man, but the doctrine of the Kingdom was without error. It is hard for us at times to see the difference.

 

 

I think what happens in these discussions about fallibility, is that when someone points out that in general the personal imperfections and drawbacks of those who administer the keys are relatively minor in comparison to the perfect doctrine of the Kingdom, someone else has to magnify those imperfections and drawbacks to reinforce the notion that they are not so relatively minor and so detracted from the doctrine of the Kingdom that it to is now in error.

[CV75]

On 8/8/2021 at 8:26 PM, Islander said:

I am also a convert and share in some of your experiences. In addition, we should remember that not everything that comes our of the mouth of man, whether a prophet or GA, is actually revelation. They are, after all, human, fallen and fallible being, just like the rest of us. Joseph made plenty of mistakes as a man, but the doctrine of the Kingdom was without error. It is hard for us at times to see the difference.

 

 

I think what happens in these discussions about fallibility, is that when someone points out that in general the personal imperfections and drawbacks of those who administer the keys are relatively minor in comparison to the perfect doctrine of the Kingdom, someone else has to magnify those imperfections and drawbacks to reinforce the notion that they are not so relatively minor and so detracted from the doctrine of the Kingdom that it too is now in error.

Edited August 10, 2021 by CV75