What is the LGBT policy goal for the Church

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But who exactly could make it NOT "axiomatic?"

Who then has what IS eternally true if no one has it?

That means the Restoration never happened!

To change God's nature would be to change what is different in Mormonism, embodied Gods and Goddesses who make spirit babies, and make us unique! We would simply become like the rest of churches who accept alternative behaviors as acceptable 

They do not believe in embodied Gods or that human children can become Gods

Maybe that would be good, but then why even have a church?

What would distinguish us as being "us"?

We could have a level in the CK for them and those that can have spirit babies on another level or in another mansion. 

 

Edited September 25, 2021 by Tacenda

[rongo]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

So you see the goal/purpose of the Church's policies as mostly PR goals?

In recent years, yes. Also to avoid liability and criticism.

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I think that we often assume the "active homosexuality is incompatible with the plan of salvation" is axiomatic. I think much of the controversy is challenging whether or not this is an eternally true axiom or not.

Well, those challenging this are unable to provide explanations for how it does not blow up the Proclamation on the Family, and the underlying doctrines if it is not axiomatic. An official paradigm shift on this in the Church (with the influence of the Brethren) would be the ultimate "we disavow all that has been said" and "forget all we have said . . . we acted with limited light, but today there is new light." But it would destroy all that Mormonism had previously taught and believed about families, gender roles, sexuality, chastity, etc. 

The proposed alternatives are even more speculative (with even less behind it than wishful thinking). "Maybe we've been wrong all along, and couples of any gender or combination create spirits by organizing. Maybe God allowed something this important to be this misunderstood for so long . . . why?" 

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

In many ways, I agree with @bluebell that one of our goals is to welcome LGBT into our community, but there is a tension between the goal of welcoming and insisting on "homosexuality is incompatible with the plan of salvation". Sometimes it feels like we are torn between the two seemingly contrary positions. I sometimes wonder if some of the policy reversals and confusion are simply a reflection of incompatible goals.

There is a tension, and possibly an irreconcilable one, with doctrine being as it is now. That is an interesting thought about policy (and sometimes doctrine, I would say) reversals reflecting incompatible goals. I don't know how the Church could change fundamental doctrine like this without it being surrender to the shifting sands of social change. Unless He confirms this individually to people, but that would be a tall order.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

This assumes that mere nominal membership exalts, regardless of what God insists. Under this assumption, it would make sense to try to keep as many people as possible from leaving, even if it meant constantly changing doctrine and ordinances and disavowing past teachings. Of course, that would lead to others leaving because there would be no bedrock foundation, only shifting sands.  

When I said "as possible," that presupposed that it would be exaltation according to God's standards. If --- for the sake of discussion here --- homosexuality were completely incompatible with the plan of salvation eternally, then trying to keep people "in the boat" by not teaching or enforcing that wouldn't actually be exalting them. It would be leading them away from it (Elder Johnson's rationale in the response to the BYU gay dating controversy last year). 

I do think that the foundational question of homosexuality and the plan of salvation is something that the president could inquire through his keys, but I don't think that has been done (the answer is also not "on demand." God may not answer it at this time). I think the Church so far has been reactionary, with tradition being the default setting. 

 

You’ve completed misunderstood me, as I’m also talking about exaltation under God’s standards.

I think that sometimes we assume that there is only one way to lead others to God’s standards, but I don’t know that that assumption is valid.

[rongo]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You’ve completed misunderstood me, as I’m also talking about exaltation under God’s standards.

I think that sometimes we assume that there is only one way to lead others to God’s standards, but I don’t know that that assumption is valid.

 I did misunderstand your earlier post. Thank you for clarifying that you were referring to exaltation under God's standards, but possibly keeping more people "in the boat" until they change their views on God's standards. I don't personally think very many people who feel strongly about this change in the Church's favor over time; I think they become disgruntled as they see no appreciable progress in the direction they want. 

I'm just sad that we've shifted from "we have modern-day prophets and a fulness of eternal truths that the rest of the world doesn't" to "we know nothing about the preexistence, and nothing about the hereafter. We don't know much about the "whys" of life, and most of our answers from the past upset people. Maybe we're going to eventually disavow a lot of what we thought we knew." It doesn't seem to be a very compelling reason to take modern-day prophets seriously. 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

I think the Church so far has been reactionary, with tradition being the default setting. 

I don't think there IS an alternative possible that keeps exaltation as an option.

And really that is what is unique in our paradigm

If we are to emulate our embodied parents, there is no other course possible 

Edited September 25, 2021 by mfbukowski

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't think there IS an alternative possible that keeps exaltation as an option.

And really that is what is unique in our paradigm

If we are to emulate our embodied parents, there is no other course possible 

I don't think there really is an alternative, either, but people sure try to hope and pretend there is (without any details about how that could actually work within our "unique paradigm," as you put it). 

As far as emulating our embodied parents, they would immediately say, "We don't know anything about the preexistence or hereafter! It's all just speculation and embarrassing outdated ideas!"

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

The proposed alternatives are even more speculative (with even less behind it than wishful thinking). "Maybe we've been wrong all along, and couples of any gender or combination create spirits by organizing. Maybe God allowed something this important to be this misunderstood for so long . . . why?" 

God allowing whole dispensations to operate on limited light and knowledge about eternal things and allowing people to reach incorrect conclusions about the afterlife? You are right. Sounds pretty unlikely.

Quote

 

Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

 

Oh……..huh………

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

God allowing whole dispensations to operate on limited light and knowledge about eternal things and allowing people to reach incorrect conclusions about the afterlife? You are right. Sounds pretty unlikely.

Oh……..huh………

With priesthood keys and prophets in the dispensation of the fulness of times? 

D&C 19 is addressing a misunderstanding from sectarian Christianity. God cleared it up early in the Restoration, though, didn't He? 

[The Nehor]

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

With priesthood keys and prophets in the dispensation of the fulness of times? 

D&C 19 is addressing a misunderstanding from sectarian Christianity. God cleared it up early in the Restoration, though, didn't He? 

No, God is admitting he allowed a misperception to stand because it worked to His glory. If you read the Book of Mormon you find that at least the Pre-Jesus visit Nephites seem to believe there were two possible fates in the afterlife and they were what we would call exaltation and outer darkness. Not all dispensations had all the information we have and there is a lot of information we don’t have. The Restoration is not over.

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

No, God is admitting he allowed a misperception to stand because it worked to His glory. If you read the Book of Mormon you find that at least the Pre-Jesus visit Nephites seem to believe there were two possible fates in the afterlife and they were what we would call exaltation and outer darkness. Not all dispensations had all the information we have and there is a lot of information we don’t have. The Restoration is not over.

Nail on the head. There exists scriptural evidence which indicates that God's dealings with men are not as cut-and-dry as we would like them to be. Maybe we should take God a little more seriously when He says His ways are mysterious. 

Take Matt 19:4-9

Quote

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which ^amade them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall ^acleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath ^ajoined together, let not man ^bput asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a ^awriting of ^bdivorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the ^ahardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your ^bwives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for ^afornication, and shall marry another, committeth ^badultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

First, it should be noted that a) we do not keep this commandment of the Savior's presently, and b) Jesus Christ stated explicitly that the Lord permitted Moses to include in the scriptures authorization for a practice that was against the eternal order, in the name of immediate necessity. I've started to think of God as a little more utilitarian than I previously have, but who knows? My conception of the Father is likely to shift a lot around certain experience-based poles until further interaction fixes more poles in place. 

Edited September 26, 2021 by OGHoosier

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, rongo said:

 I did misunderstand your earlier post. Thank you for clarifying that you were referring to exaltation under God's standards, but possibly keeping more people "in the boat" until they change their views on God's standards. I don't personally think very many people who feel strongly about this change in the Church's favor over time; I think they become disgruntled as they see no appreciable progress in the direction they want. 

I'm just sad that we've shifted from "we have modern-day prophets and a fulness of eternal truths that the rest of the world doesn't" to "we know nothing about the preexistence, and nothing about the hereafter. We don't know much about the "whys" of life, and most of our answers from the past upset people. Maybe we're going to eventually disavow a lot of what we thought we knew." It doesn't seem to be a very compelling reason to take modern-day prophets seriously. 

I'm not advocating for the bold either (sorry I'm explaining myself so poorly).  I'm saying that maybe we don't understand God's standards as well as we think we do and maybe we are drawing lines in the sand that don't actually exist. 

Like when Elder McKonkie had to tell us to ignore everything he and the other leaders ever said about the priesthood and black people, for example. They drew a line in the sand and basically said, if the church is going to continue to support God standards then there are certain things that can never be.  Then......they had to humble themselves and admit that they didn't understand God's standards like they thought they did.

I think this same idea works for some of the teachings surrounding polygamy as well.  There were some teachings about the necessity of polygamy to be exalted and then....."nevermind, we drew a line in the sand that doesn't actually exist."

You said earlier "If the ultimate goal of the Church is exaltation for as many as possible, then the Church will hold the line on the law of chastity forever."   While I agree that the church will always hold the line of the law of chastity, I disagree with the idea that how we currently interpret that line is infallible and unassailable.  

I don't think we can assume that the way we are currently defining the law of chastity--or even our understanding of how to help as many people as possible reach exaltation,--is necessarily how God defines it or understands it.  We see through a glass darkly and we need to remember that.   Our vision is cloudy and we need to be really careful about creating absolutes under those conditions.

 

[rongo]

51 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not advocating for the bold either (sorry I'm explaining myself so poorly).  I'm saying that maybe we don't understand God's standards as well as we think we do and maybe we are drawing lines in the sand that don't actually exist. 

It's also possible that the lines in the sand do exist, but people don't like them, so they obfuscate everything.  

52 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Like when Elder McKonkie had to tell us to ignore everything he and the other leaders ever said about the priesthood and black people, for example. They drew a line in the sand and basically said, if the church is going to continue to support God standards then there are certain things that can never be.  Then......they had to humble themselves and admit that they didn't understand God's standards like they thought they did.

Well, that isn't quite the language they used.  

Elder McConkie was the one most on record about it, and I think what he said is unfortunate because it throws everything into confusion, if he was right. We can never be sure of anything, because any dogmatic declaration du jour can later be declared to have been with "the limited light we had" then. That also applies to any sweeping, bombshell changes that may happen in the future. Once you start "disavowing" things, there isn't anything that can't later be "disavowed" --- including the disavowals. 

57 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think this same idea works for some of the teachings surrounding polygamy as well.  There were some teachings about the necessity of polygamy to be exalted and then....."nevermind, we drew a line in the sand that doesn't actually exist."

Again, this is not what was said, and I think it goes much too far compared to what they did say (I know you are paraphrasing and colloquializing in a folksy way, not pretending to accurately represent was said). All that President Woodruff said was that God had shown him what would happen if we didn't do away with it. He said nothing about counsel about exaltation (which only applied to those who were under obligation. Woodruff himself repeatedly pegged the number at about 10% of the Church who participated in it, so it was never a blanket requirement for exaltation). Nothing said then or since then addressed any polygamy "lines in the sand" at all --- it was simply discontinued with Manifesto #1, and for good with Manifesto #2. 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

You said earlier "If the ultimate goal of the Church is exaltation for as many as possible, then the Church will hold the line on the law of chastity forever."   While I agree that the church will always hold the line of the law of chastity, I disagree with the idea that how we currently interpret that line is infallible and unassailable.  

Meaning what, though? A change along the lines of allowing active homosexuality within full worthiness and fellowship (or any other similar change) is far more than saying that "how we currently interpret that line" is wrong. 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don't think we can assume that the way we are currently defining the law of chastity--or even our understanding of how to help as many people as possible reach exaltation,--is necessarily how God defines it or understands it.  We see through a glass darkly and we need to remember that.   Our vision is cloudy and we need to be really careful about creating absolutes under those conditions.

This is what I don't like. It seems to make the point @HappyJackWagon and @Analytics were making about God either being incapable or unwilling of making His will about important things known to His children (especially to His leaders). Yes, we see through a glass darkly, but if we always turn to that to say "we actually don't know anything about the preexistence, the hereafter, or where God actually wants the lines in the sand to be" to escape criticism or anguish about requirements, then it seems more like we're blind tapping with a striped cane. 

And how would we know that the "new" line in the sand from a big change isn't also hopelessly seen through a glass darkly? 

[MrShorty]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But who exactly could make it NOT "axiomatic?"

Who then has what IS eternally true if no one has it?

That means the Restoration never happened!

It might be an apples to oranges comparison, but this reminded me of the claims made by creationists like Joseph Fielding Smith that, if we accept evolution or anything less than a "literal" reading of the creation narratives, that the whole of Christianity falls apart (Creation and Fall could not happen under an evolutionary paradigm, so atonement and redemption cannot happen). I seem to recall that similar absolutist statements were made about polygamy. In the past, we have claimed to KNOW which doctrines/practices are among the lynchpins of the gospel, then later changed those beliefs. I guess I just find myself questioning any claim that ______ doctrine is a lynchpin of the gospel and without it the whole thing necessarily falls apart. I recognize that some people claim that "active homosexuality is incompatible with the plan of salvation" is one of those lynchpin doctrines, but I am not convinced that it really is.

To bring this back to goals of policies, you might be saying that one of the Church's goals is to preserve the lynchpin.

[MrShorty]

9 hours ago, rongo said:

10 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm not advocating for the bold either (sorry I'm explaining myself so poorly).  I'm saying that maybe we don't understand God's standards as well as we think we do and maybe we are drawing lines in the sand that don't actually exist. 

It's also possible that the lines in the sand do exist, but people don't like them, so they obfuscate everything.

I'd venture to say that this is the discernment problem in a nutshell. How do we know we are clearly seeing a bright line in the sand, or seeing a vague possible line in the sand, or intentionally obfuscating a bright line in the sand?

 

9 hours ago, rongo said:

This is what I don't like. It seems to make the point @HappyJackWagon and @Analytics were making about God either being incapable or unwilling of making His will about important things known to His children (especially to His leaders).

I agree that this is a very unlikable prospect. The problem I see is that there have been issues historically where it seems that God did not accurately make His will known to His leaders. I've mentioned it before, but I think Ben Spackman captures the essence of the problem in his lesson materials for Philemon. "What model of scripture, revelation, and prophets allows “God’s word,” God’s prophets, and Jesus himself to do or allow something so… inhuman [speaking of slavery]?" If we don't like the possibilities that God is unwilling or incapable of making His will known, then what other explanations do we like better? It's a real problem, IMO.

[carbon dioxide]

19 hours ago, Tacenda said:

We could have a level in the CK for them and those that can have spirit babies on another level or in another mansion. 

 

We could have a level in the CK?  Are you assuming that this is something we can do or control?  The CK predates the creation of the Universe and I think the organization and laws governing it are fixed and not moving for anyone at this point.

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, rongo said:

It's also possible that the lines in the sand do exist, but people don't like them, so they obfuscate everything.  

Well, that isn't quite the language they used.  

Elder McConkie was the one most on record about it, and I think what he said is unfortunate because it throws everything into confusion, if he was right. We can never be sure of anything, because any dogmatic declaration du jour can later be declared to have been with "the limited light we had" then. That also applies to any sweeping, bombshell changes that may happen in the future. Once you start "disavowing" things, there isn't anything that can't later be "disavowed" --- including the disavowals. 

Of course if you believe God is at the helm these problems fade away because He is not going ping pong back and forth unless it is for a good reason.

So what if more knowledge changes things?

10 hours ago, rongo said:

Again, this is not what was said, and I think it goes much too far compared to what they did say (I know you are paraphrasing and colloquializing in a folksy way, not pretending to accurately represent was said). All that President Woodruff said was that God had shown him what would happen if we didn't do away with it. He said nothing about counsel about exaltation (which only applied to those who were under obligation. Woodruff himself repeatedly pegged the number at about 10% of the Church who participated in it, so it was never a blanket requirement for exaltation). Nothing said then or since then addressed any polygamy "lines in the sand" at all --- it was simply discontinued with Manifesto #1, and for good with Manifesto #2. 

Meaning what, though? A change along the lines of allowing active homosexuality within full worthiness and fellowship (or any other similar change) is far more than saying that "how we currently interpret that line" is wrong. 

This is what I don't like. It seems to make the point @HappyJackWagon and @Analytics were making about God either being incapable or unwilling of making His will about important things known to His children (especially to His leaders). Yes, we see through a glass darkly, but if we always turn to that to say "we actually don't know anything about the preexistence, the hereafter, or where God actually wants the lines in the sand to be" to escape criticism or anguish about requirements, then it seems more like we're blind tapping with a striped cane. 

And how would we know that the "new" line in the sand from a big change isn't also hopelessly seen through a glass darkly? 

We don’t know much about premortality or the hereafter.

The hope is to find more clarity with each new understanding.

[carbon dioxide]

10 hours ago, rongo said:

It's also possible that the lines in the sand do exist, but people don't like them, so they obfuscate everything.

The pattern I believe normally happens is God reveals truth and Satan then begins the processes of picking it apart and getting people either not to believe it or believe in an alternative reality of what God revealed.  It is not to Satan's advantage to leave revealed truth unmolested.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

To bring this back to goals of policies, you might be saying that one of the Church's goals is to preserve the lynchpin.

That's close

What happens to physics if we got the speed of light "wrong" or some other very basic foundational stuff?

The theory / paradigm falls apart

So I am waiting to see if some  genius can show how an alternative view of gender does NOT blow up the paradigm of an embodied God, which then makes us like every other church on every corner 

Edited September 26, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Chum]

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So I am waiting to see if some  genius can show how an alternative view of gender does NOT blow up the paradigm of an embodied God

Now I'm wondering if the Trinitarian God will turn out to be all gendered.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I'd venture to say that this is the discernment problem in a nutshell. How do we know we are clearly seeing a bright line in the sand, or seeing a vague possible line in the sand, or intentionally obfuscating a bright line in the sand?

 

I agree that this is a very unlikable prospect. The problem I see is that there have been issues historically where it seems that God did not accurately make His will known to His leaders. I've mentioned it before, but I think Ben Spackman captures the essence of the problem in his lesson materials for Philemon. "What model of scripture, revelation, and prophets allows “God’s word,” God’s prophets, and Jesus himself to do or allow something so… inhuman [speaking of slavery]?" If we don't like the possibilities that God is unwilling or incapable of making His will known, then what other explanations do we like better? It's a real problem, IMO.

I think the alternative to God being unwilling or incapable of making His will known is that He brings us along individually and collectively according to our willingness and capacity to receive. That is why things go line upon line, precept upon precept,whether over a lifetime or through history. This is why unity is of such a high priority in the way the Lord makes His will known (3 Nephi 11:29-35, the connection between unity and receiving the record of the Holy Ghost, the method by which He makes His will known).

When it seems that God did not accurately make His will known to His leaders, that is all it is: a matter of perception.

So, I think the key to wanting the doctrine or policy of the Church to change, and the motive and the strategy for accomplishing this, is being united in having been visited with fire and with the Holy Ghost. This requires a great deal of introspection and expression of charity.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

We could have a level in the CK?  Are you assuming that this is something we can do or control?  The CK predates the creation of the Universe and I think the organization and laws governing it are fixed and not moving for anyone at this point.

We changed some significant temple wording. And could the LGBTQ just fit in with those that are not sealed to a married spouse but still attend the temple. Be endowed but not sealed?  

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

We changed some significant temple wording. And could the LGBTQ just fit in with those that are not sealed to a married spouse but still attend the temple. Be endowed but not sealed?  

A trans acquaintance of mine (who I find to be highly intelligent if not quite yet emotionally intelligent But well on his way) recently explained to me that excluding LGBTQ from any activity that is allowed for non LGBTQ folk is by definition phobic. He does not believe in God anymore, however I suppose if he did, he would describe God as homophobic. The very thought is provocative I know.

It’s quite interesting as I get to know this young man and care about his well-being how I tend to examine these issues, and people, quite differently than I did before. There is still a lot that I don’t understand and cannot comprehend, however, I am much more compassionate towards those who feel very left out and alienated than I did when  I only knew one transgendered person personally whom I really disliked (for reasons other than her gender ID.) 
 

 

 

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, rongo said:

It's also possible that the lines in the sand do exist, but people don't like them, so they obfuscate everything.  

Of course.  But that goes both ways.  Someone may not like the line and be desperate to pretend that it doesn't exist.  Someone else may not like that the line doesn't exist and will hang on at all costs to the idea that it does.

The existence of both groups says nothing about the truth claims of either.  As with most things, both groups are probably sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

Quote

Elder McConkie was the one most on record about it, and I think what he said is unfortunate because it throws everything into confusion, if he was right. We can never be sure of anything, because any dogmatic declaration du jour can later be declared to have been with "the limited light we had" then. That also applies to any sweeping, bombshell changes that may happen in the future. Once you start "disavowing" things, there isn't anything that can't later be "disavowed" --- including the disavowals. 

Uncertainty can be uncomfortable but I don't believe that uncertainty is unfortunate.  I think it actually makes it easier for us to find truth when we are open to being wrong and willing to be corrected.  Saul was incredibly certain that God wanted the Christians dead.  Imagine what would have been if he had not being willing to be corrected, or been willing to "go on record" about it.

Quote

Again, this is not what was said, and I think it goes much too far compared to what they did say (I know you are paraphrasing and colloquializing in a folksy way, not pretending to accurately represent was said). All that President Woodruff said was that God had shown him what would happen if we didn't do away with it. He said nothing about counsel about exaltation (which only applied to those who were under obligation. Woodruff himself repeatedly pegged the number at about 10% of the Church who participated in it, so it was never a blanket requirement for exaltation). Nothing said then or since then addressed any polygamy "lines in the sand" at all --- it was simply discontinued with Manifesto #1, and for good with Manifesto #2. 

My point was not to argue the merits of polygamy or stopping it, only to illustrate that in our past there have been things that have been understood in certain ways, and church members were taught that such understandings were "true", when they weren't true.   If that could happen with the prophets and saints who came before us, why do we think that it can't happen with us?

Quote

Meaning what, though? A change along the lines of allowing active homosexuality within full worthiness and fellowship (or any other similar change) is far more than saying that "how we currently interpret that line" is wrong. 

With our current understanding, yes.  But our current understanding is limited and incomplete so maybe we shouldn't act like it's not.   That's my meaning.

Quote

This is what I don't like. It seems to make the point @HappyJackWagon and @Analytics were making about God either being incapable or unwilling of making His will about important things known to His children (especially to His leaders).

I don't agree with either of the bolded above. I think that God is incredibly capable and willing of getting His points and doctrine across.  But I don't think that He's always interested in having us understand everything completely accurately yet.  Line upon line and all of that.  That's why Christ taught in parables right? 

What God wants us to know at any given point is much less than what can be known on the subject, and since most great teachers understand the value of simplistic and incomplete lessons, I'm assuming that God does as well.   

Maybe we just aren't spiritually mature enough yet not to use it for ill.  Maybe we've got to jettison some other cultural  or personal stumbling blocks first before the knowledge is useful.  Maybe we are too weak to accept it and the knowledge will condemn us.   Maybe we are still learning the letters of the English alphabet while the subject matter is Russian Literature.

There are many many reasons why God might allow us to proceed with an incomplete or slightly inaccurate understanding of a doctrine for a time.  But none of those reasons are, in my opinion, because He is incapable of unwilling to teach them to us.

If I've learned anything from my experiences with God it's that timing is everything.

Quote

Yes, we see through a glass darkly, but if we always turn to that to say "we actually don't know anything about the preexistence, the hereafter, or where God actually wants the lines in the sand to be" to escape criticism or anguish about requirements, then it seems more like we're blind tapping with a striped cane. 

I don't agree with this either.  This idea that if we can't be certain about every gospel tenant or teaching then we can't know anything about any of it, is in my opinion, a tool of satan.  It's how he gets us to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  

From my perspective, what 'seeing through a glass darkly' means is that we must always be open to new information, correction, and growth in directions we didn't see coming.  It means that we acknowledge the realities that come with limited understanding.  It means we proceed confidently with the knowledge that we have, trusting that when it's time for us to move up a rung on that ladder, God will both give us the new information we need, as well as winnow the incorrect out of the old information, so we can move forward.

Quote

And how would we know that the "new" line in the sand from a big change isn't also hopelessly seen through a glass darkly? 

Humility, trust in God's process, and the Spirit.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The pattern I believe normally happens is God reveals truth and Satan then begins the processes of picking it apart and getting people either not to believe it or believe in an alternative reality of what God revealed.  It is not to Satan's advantage to leave revealed truth unmolested.

Do you actually feel Satan trying to manipulate you?  If so, what does it feel like?

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

Do you actually feel Satan trying to manipulate you?  If so, what does it feel like?

Speaking from experience, it feels like ego, pride, caring what other people think, shame, etc.  It really doesn't matter what the subject is, that's almost always what it feels like.