Opinion Piece by Ty Mansfield: Managing "Tension" between Doctrines and Impact

[mrmarklin]

On 10/23/2021 at 8:32 AM, webbles said:

The issue is on when the ban would be lifted.  I don't think many members knew what Brigham Young had said about the time limit for the ban.  In addition, by the 1970s, several of the presidents had talked about the ban being lifted without putting any limit.  So I don't see any problem with members believing that the ban could be lifted within their lifetime.

I was an adult member then. I was there. No one I ever discussed this issue with believed in any definite time when the ban would be lifted, other than the Lord’s time. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

So this whole thing about the Church being run by Christ and revelation doesn't really mean much does it.  It is a church run by committee that has to approve of everything unanimously.

The belief that Christ runs the Church and the policy/doctrine all the 15 have to agree are not contradictory if one also believes that Christ reveals his will not just to the Prophet, but all those ordained to be prophets as is every man called to be an apostle. That they are human, fallible and are not always all open to the same level of revelation from Christ in the same way at the same time and therefore it may take time to reach that unanimity does not prevent Christ from being at the helm of the Church. 

[mrmarklin]

After reading a good portion of this thread, I can opine that it is extremely unlikely ( impossible, really) that there will ever be so called same sex marriages condoned by the Church. The idea of this frustrates the Lord’s purposes in that these couples cannot have progeny of their own. And raising righteous progeny is the Lord’s overriding purpose. 

[mrmarklin]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

The belief that Christ runs the Church and the policy/doctrine all the 15 have to agree are not contradictory if one also believes that Christ reveals his will not just to the Prophet, but all those ordained to be prophets as is every man called to be an apostle. That they are human, fallible and are not always all open to the same level of revelation from Christ in the same way at the same time and therefore it may take time to reach that unanimity does not prevent Christ from being at the helm of the Church. 

Every one of Joseph Smith’s revelations was ratified by the members of the church, a process that continues to this day. 

[Stormin' Mormon]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

 

So this whole thing about the Church being run by Christ and revelation doesn't really mean much does it.  It is a church run by committee that has to approve of everything unanimously.  I certainly agree with that.  I just didn't realize this was the official Church version of how things are done.  And if an apostle like Hugh B. Brown or Mark E. Peterson isn't receiving revelation, then why are they holding the position of apostle??  I would think the very most important thing about their calling is to follow the will of Christ.  If they aren't doing that, then what?  

I have to say, it is really interesting to me to see how members handle this.  Thanks for explaining this all to me.  

The system makes it MORE likely that the church is run by revelation, not less likely.  One person can be mistaken.  One person can conflate their own desires with what the Lord wants.  One person may bend to political expediency.  Requiring that all 15 men receive the same revelation ensures that the desired change actually IS revelation and not just a prudent move on the part of the prophet.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

The system makes it MORE likely that the church is run by revelation, not less likely.  One person can be mistaken.  One person can conflate their own desires with what the Lord wants.  One person may bend to political expediency.  Requiring that all 15 men receive the same revelation ensures that the desired change actually IS revelation and not just a prudent move on the part of the prophet.

This…

[Calm]

2 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

The idea of this frustrates the Lord’s purposes in that these couples cannot have progeny of their own. And raising righteous progeny is the Lord’s overriding purpose. 

There are many couples who adopt children and raise up righteous progeny.  This is theoretically and practically possible in mortality.  Are there reasons it would be impossible in the eternities?  If not, I think assuming it would frustrate the Lord’s purpose is ignoring how the Gods work together.  As far as we known, the Father does not send God the Mother version 2 with God the Father version 2 with a backpack or two with all their needed supplies to start a universe and then waves them off with “you are on your own, see you in a millennium or two.

I think there are valid arguments that exalted couples will be man and woman, but lack of biological progeny isn’t one of them, IMO, not with the limited knowledge we work with.  We can clone and have many artificial processes these days making it easer…or harder…to become pregnant.  They have incubation beds for extremely young babies.  I would not be the least bit surprised if the next leap of medical OB progress is being able to so duplicate the conditions of the womb that even young fetuses may be able to survive once how the umbilical cord can be integrated into the unit to truly mimic a womb.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The priesthood ban was understood from the first to be temporary. Not so with the Lord’s law of matrimony. Any conjecture that marriage under His law will be changed to permit same-sex marriage is baseless. 

The ban has an ending for sure (at the end of the millennium after every other eligible male received the priesthood). That’s not the only change though. All the revealed doctrine supporting the ban has also been abandoned and disavowed. And as has been shown in this very thread the scriptural foundations for the ban have also been completely reinterpreted too! I mean in 1960 then Elder Kimball still believed it when the Book of Mormon said the lamanites would become “white” again as indicated in his general conference address on the subject. Now we have statements like this when this teaching is accidentally revived:

”“During the publication of the ‘Come, Follow Me’ manual for 2020, there was an error that resulted in the printing of material that doesn’t reflect the church’s current views on the topic,” she said in a statement. “To correct this, a decision was made to modify the content in the digital version of the lesson."

 https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/01/18/error-printed-lds-church/

 

So the ban was to have an ending (at the end of time), but the revealed doctrine supporting the ban as well as the scriptures did not. That did not stop them from being reinterpreted or completely abandoned/ disavowed. 

Edited October 26, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[CA Steve]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

This…

Not really. 

This same group of men were wrong about the priesthood ban for over a hundred years and still cannot provide clarity on why it occurred, and, we place unique and special emphasis on the nature of our Prophet as the mouthpiece of God.  A requirement of a  consensus of the 15 diminishes greatly that claim in my view. But I understand the reasoning behind this. More and more we are moving away from the charismatic aspects of our church and into an organization that seems very concerned with not making mistakes or offending. I think the abandonment of the position of the presiding patriarch an excellent example of the church not wanting to deal with a charismatic leader over which they did not have complete control. Correlation and the Church Newsroom are other indications of an organization trying to present a picture of church run by a group rather than an individual. Just before he died I had the opportunity to listen to Armand Mauss talk about this very issue. His concern was the the church was moving to make religion too easy and too similar to other religions and it was loosing that which made it unique and made it stand out from other churches.

In many aspects I believe we have come to resemble they very organizations  which Smith considered corrupt in his time.

 

On Edit.

If we truly believed that the prophet spoke directly with or received direct clear instructions from God then needing the endorsement of 14 other men would be unnecessary and redundant.

Edited October 26, 2021 by CA Steve

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Every one of Joseph Smith’s revelations was ratified by the members of the church, a process that continues to this day. 

****cough, plural marriage cough***

 

Also can you tell me when the Nov 5 “revelation” banning children of gay couples baptism was ratified by church members again?

Edited October 26, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[CV75]

14 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

https://archive.org/details/CR100317B0001F0017

  Quote

Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon Cain, Abels children was in all probability young; the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the preisthood nor his see, until the last of the posterity of Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the preisthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon the, until the resedue of the posterity of Michal and his wife receive the blessings, the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed; and hold the keys of the preisthood, until the times of the restitution shall come, and the curse be wiped off from the earth, and from michals seed. 

You cannot take this as Brigham Young declaring that the ban and its implementation was revealed to him. He is explaining what he knew and understood to be the case at the time. It looks to me like he didn't think he needed a revelation to act on what he thought was plain. In the case of marriage, our prophets go beyond what they think is plain; they have an actual revelation about it in D&C 132.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You cannot take this as Brigham Young declaring that the ban and its implementation was revealed to him.
 

So you say, and yet I do.

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

In the case of marriage, our prophets go beyond what they think is plain; they have an actual revelation about it in D&C 132.

 

Your interpretation of it. It says nothing about it in the text. It almost looks to me like you don’t “think [you] needed a revelation to act on what [you] thought was plain.”

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

The belief that Christ runs the Church and the policy/doctrine all the 15 have to agree are not contradictory if one also believes that Christ reveals his will not just to the Prophet, but all those ordained to be prophets as is every man called to be an apostle. That they are human, fallible and are not always all open to the same level of revelation from Christ in the same way at the same time and therefore it may take time to reach that unanimity does not prevent Christ from being at the helm of the Church. 

 

55 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

The system makes it MORE likely that the church is run by revelation, not less likely.  One person can be mistaken.  One person can conflate their own desires with what the Lord wants.  One person may bend to political expediency.  Requiring that all 15 men receive the same revelation ensures that the desired change actually IS revelation and not just a prudent move on the part of the prophet.

This system has prevented blacks from holding the priesthood for over 100 years.  One single apostle could, and has, thwart the will of God for decades.  If God did want gay people to have families and partake of the gospel blessings, one single apostle could hold up those blessings for a century.  

Maybe that is why I have such peace that I have done the right thing and don't really worry about what the Church does.  I know that same peace can be given to every single gay person if they just pray about it.

Edited October 26, 2021 by california boy

[california boy]

3 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

After reading a good portion of this thread, I can opine that it is extremely unlikely ( impossible, really) that there will ever be so called same sex marriages condoned by the Church. The idea of this frustrates the Lord’s purposes in that these couples cannot have progeny of their own. And raising righteous progeny is the Lord’s overriding purpose. 

How many children do single celibate gay men have?  The very policy of the Church is frustrating the Lord's purpose in having progenitors.  They can't even adopt without getting kicked out of the Church.  Or do adopted children not really count as a family.

Edited October 26, 2021 by california boy

[rchorse]

8 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Also page 26 of Edward Kimball's revelation on the priesthood article  https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3908&context=byusq

 

People shouldn't expect revelation to just pop out of thin air. Praying for revelation on something is pretty much the last step in the process. After counciling and thinking it out first. Hence the first presidency having counsellors, and the quorum of the 12 also being referred to as the council of the twelve.

I think it's also worth pointing out on pages 58 and 59 of the article linked to by JustAnAustralian, that the two missing apostles, Elders Petersen and Stapley, immediately got on board when informed about the revelation. This was before the revelation had been made public or even been communicated to the Seventy. They did not try to block it or prevent it from moving forward, when they easily could have. 

[Stormin' Mormon]

There is a first season episode of Friends in which Phoebe declares she doesn't believe in evolution.  (Stick with me here, I have a point that is germane to the current discussion).  Ross, who is a professor of paleontology, takes great umbrage at this declaration and spends the entire episode trying to convince her that evolution is a true principle.  At the end of the episode, Phoebe grills Ross, asking him: isn't there the tiniest possibility that you're wrong? With great pain and reluctance, Ross admits that yes, there is a teeny tiny possibility that he could be wrong about evolution.  To which Phoebe responds with feigned dismay that he would cave so easily on his principles.  (The last two minutes of this clip is what I'm really thinking about here, but the whole 5 minutes is good fun if you're a fan of late-90's sit coms).

Sometimes I feel that critics of the LDS church are like Phoebe in this episode.  They prod and pressure and cajole the church about being out of step with social norms.  Polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, the role of women in the church, gay marriage.  The church, they say, needs to make these changes in order to be more accepting, open, loving, Christlike.  But then when revelation is received making the very changes they have advocated for, they act like Phoebe: "I can't believe you caved.  Before, I respected you for sticking to your principles, but now I see that "revelation" is no more than political expediency."

Our critics don't believe in revelation.  They don't believe the Church is guided by revelation.  It doesn't matter if one man receives it or fifteen.  It doesn't matter whether the revelation comes early or late, whether it changes a small temporary policy or overturns a 150-year old tradition. There's always going to be some political or social explanation for the content and timing of such revelations.   And some critics will react with feigned outrage that the church caved to such pressures.  It's a no-win situation.  

 

Edited October 26, 2021 by Stormin' Mormon

[CV75]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So you say, and yet I do.

Your interpretation of it. It says nothing about it in the text. It almost looks to me like you don’t “think [you] needed a revelation to act on what [you] thought was plain.”

Yes, you certainly do, even though BY didn't state that he received a revelation on the matter. And yet, he / they acted accordingly, which the 1978 revelation countered. I guess I should have said "You cannot rightly  or correctly take this as Brigham Young declaring that the ban and its implementation was revealed to him."

Let's say for giggles that BY had a revelation that white males may receive the oath and covenant of the priesthood. Blacks and others would then be excluded by that same revelation. In actuality, D&C 132 says that men and women enter the covenant of marriage. Same-sex partners are thus excluded by that same revelation.

[Nofear]

5 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Our critics don't believe in revelation.  They don't believe the Church is guided by revelation.  It doesn't matter if one man receives it or fifteen.  It doesn't matter whether the revelation comes early or late, whether it changes a small temporary policy or overturns a 150-year old tradition. There's always going to be some political or social explanation for the content and timing of such revelations.   And some critics will react with feigned outrage that the church caved to such pressures.  It's a no-win situation. 

I'm perfectly content with the idea that people (including Apostles, but by no means limited to them) of times past may have held certain biases that inhibit openness to this or that revelation. But that does not mean that no revelation is received. Heck, I know that I'm in that category (even though I'm often blind to my own biases). But, that doesn't invalidate other personal revelation I've received. What's amazing is that the Lord is still willing to work with me or us and give us light and revelation as we are willing/able to receive and abide by it. And by amazing, I mean, how would it make sense for it to be any other way?

 

Edited October 26, 2021 by Nofear

[pogi]

6 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

After reading a good portion of this thread, I can opine that it is extremely unlikely ( impossible, really) that there will ever be so called same sex marriages condoned by the Church. The idea of this frustrates the Lord’s purposes in that these couples cannot have progeny of their own. And raising righteous progeny is the Lord’s overriding purpose. 

We know that intelligences exist independent of creation.  Do we know how spirit children are created?  The fact that spirit children are evolved intelligences without a physical body suggests to me that the process probably doesn't require physical intercourse, a physical womb and a birthing canal, nor mammary glands.   Without further revelation on the process, I agree that it is unlikely but to say it is "impossible' goes too far.   We simply don't know enough to be so certain.  I think it is premature to suggest that progeny of spirit children in the premortal realm is impossible without female anatomy.  We are not talking about mortal children being born through physical childbirth here.  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

We know that intelligences exist independent of creation.  Do we know how spirit children are created?  The fact that spirit children are evolved intelligences without a physical body suggests to me that the process probably doesn't require physical intercourse, a physical womb and a birthing canal, nor mammary glands.   Without further revelation on the process, I agree that it is unlikely but to say it is "impossible' goes too far.   We simply don't know enough to be so certain.  I think it is premature to suggest that progeny of spirit children in the premortal realm is impossible without female anatomy.  We are not talking about mortal children being born through physical childbirth here.  

These well-known quotes from the Book of Moses indicate that a man and a woman are necessary. Mortal birth. spiritual rebirth and immortal rebirth each require a man and a woman: Adam and Eve (or figuratively, “an Adam’ and “an Eve”) in the first instance; the Only Begotten (who required a mother, Mary, and His Father) in the second and third instances. “All things have their likeness” in each and every estate, whether spiritual or natural anatomy:

“I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth… all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word.”

“And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me.”

“…and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made …even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory… [exaltation]”

“And now, behold, I say unto you: This is the plan of salvation unto all men, through the blood of mine Only Begotten, who shall come in the meridian of time.”

[pogi]

46 minutes ago, CV75 said:

These well-known quotes from the Book of Moses indicate that a man and a woman are necessary.

I think you are taking some liberty in your interpretation there, which is fine.  I have nothing against your interpretation, per se.  I just don't think we can say for certain how premortal spiritual birth happens or what is required based on these verses.   It doesn't mention "man" or "woman" in these verses.  Nor does it mention premortal birth, or how it works.  You are taking the phrase "all things have their likeness" to mean certain things that I am not certain it means.  For example, those verses speak of being born again. 

If we are to use this analogy though we can see that there are 2 births spiritual (premortal) and then physical (mortal).  In mortality there are 2 rebirths - 1) rebirth of water, in the likeness of physical birth from the womb, and 2) rebirth of fire/spirit).  This seems to go along with the passage "the first shall be last and the last shall be first".  First - spiritual birth.  Last - physical birth.  Then in mortality the last "physcial birth" is first (represented by baptism out of water), and the first "spiritual birth" is last (represented by baptism of fire. 

One could conclude that if the baptism of fire is in the likeness our first premortal spiritual birth, then no female anatomy is required at all as with physical birth and represented by baptism by water.           

Despite your interpretation that a man and a woman must be required for all forms of birth I don't think such things are plainly manifest in this passage. 

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

One could conclude that if the baptism of fire is in the likeness our first premortal spiritual birth, then no female anatomy is required at all as with physical birth and represented by baptism by water.

What would be the purpose then of sealing husbands to wives for eternity, if there is no need for a male/female couple in the eternities?  I would agree with you that spirit birth is probably different than mortal birth, but if a male and female aren't needed in some role then there would seem to be no reason for husband and wife sealings.

[mrmarklin]

6 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

****cough, plural marriage cough***

 

Also can you tell me when the Nov 5 “revelation” banning children of gay couples baptism was ratified by church members again?

AFAIK Sec. 132 was ratified by the church members. The Nov 5 “revelation” is not in scripture AFAIK, so was never ratified. Ie. it is not an official revelation. 

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think you are taking some liberty in your interpretation there, which is fine.  I have nothing against your interpretation, per se.  I just don't think we can say for certain how premortal spiritual birth happens or what is required based on these verses.   It doesn't mention "man" or "woman" in these verses.  Nor does it mention premortal birth, or how it works.  You are taking the phrase "all things have their likeness" to mean certain things that I am not certain it means.  For example, those verses speak of being born again. 

If we are to use this analogy though we can see that there are 2 births spiritual (premortal) and then physical (mortal).  In mortality there are 2 rebirths - 1) rebirth of water, in the likeness of physical birth from the womb, and 2) rebirth of fire/spirit).  This seems to go along with the passage "the first shall be last and the last shall be first".  First - spiritual birth.  Last - physical birth.  Then in mortality the last "physcial birth" is first (represented by baptism out of water), and the first "spiritual birth" is last (represented by baptism of fire. 

One could conclude that if the baptism of fire is in the likeness our first premortal spiritual birth, then no female anatomy is required at all as with physical birth and represented by baptism by water.           

Despite your interpretation that a man and a woman must be required for all forms of birth I don't think such things are plainly manifest in this passage. 

“Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not. Behold the wounds which pierced my side, and also the prints of the nails in my hands and feet; be faithful, keep my commandments, and ye shall inherit the kingdom of heaven. Amen.” (D&C 6:36, 37).

I think the concept of male-female pairing being essential for our existence in any estate is as simple as considering that Christ created all things (the spiritual, temporal and natural sharing their likeness, literally and figuratively) to bear record of Him, and then how Christ got here at all. He exemplifies the eternal pattern for all of us. Can you identify an estate where it is not? Anyone can speculate on the mechanics; that is not what I’m talking about, except to point out that female-male paring is a common requirement for our existence each estate.

[kimpearson]

Since we are discussing whether prophetic revelation will change on this issue, I have a question for all involved about prophetic revelation.  Why throughout the Bible, The Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants did God reveal His will to a prophet (one specifically not 15)?  Why was this revelation almost always recorded as a vision, dream, visitation by an angel or visitation by Jesus but since Joseph Smith, only one dream has been canonized?  We claim God doesn't change but why no more visions, dreams, visitation by angels or The Savior?  Please don't tell me they are too sacred to share because the flies in the face of what every prophet up to and including Joseph Smith by in fact sharing those experiences?  What are your ideas on why the change in revelation?  I am not claiming the general authorities don't get revelation, I just believe they receive it they same way each one of us do.  Through internal feelings that we identify as the voice of the Holy Ghost.