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

[webbles]

10 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It’s more informative to look at what people where saying about this in the 1950’s and 60’s than what we think about it today in a post ban church. There is this from President Lee:

https://askgramps.org/was-the-ordination-of-elijah-abel-to-the-priesthood-an/

After reading several books on the ban, it looks like after Brigham Young, most of the discussion was over the theological backing of the ban and not the length of the ban.  But I think I found a possible statement.  It is Joseph Fielding Smith in "Answers to Gospel Questions":

Quote

“Kindly see chapters 15 and 16, in The Way to Perfection, for further light in relation to the reason why the Negro cannot receive the priesthood. In brief, it is as follows: Because of transgression in the first estate which deprives him in this second estate. Since Cain slew his brother Abel in order to obtain all the rights of priesthood to descend through his lineage, the Lord decreed that the children of Cain should not have the privilege of bearing the priesthood until Abel had posterity who could have the priesthood and that will have to be in the far distant future. When this is accomplished on some other world, then the restrictions will be removed from the children of Cain who have been true in this ‘second’ estate” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions 2:188).

That statement is summarizing something he wrote in "The Way to Perfection: Short Discourses on Gospel Themes" which was published in 1931.  I don't have a copy of that book, nor can I find it online, so I don't have the actual quote from the book.

But Joseph Fielding Smith is saying that the ban will be lifted in the far future when Abel has posterity who can have the priesthood.  He says that it would be accomplished on some other world so maybe Abel had posterity by 1978?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

The Way to Perfection: Short Discourses on Gospel Themes"

I used to have it. Will go see if still do. 
 

added:  no go, that was indeed passed on in the last book purge or two because it was available with many others in book databases…now though they are likely out of date with our tech. 

Edited October 28, 2021 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

5 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

 

Has anyone brought up the Dr. Lowry Nelson exchanges? It demonstrates well what the First Presidency believed to be doctrine at the time that the exchanges took place.

There’s a lot of apologetic revisionism going on in this thread. 
 

Archival link

 

Here’s an oldie and goodie blog article written by a lay historian on the matter:

http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/lowry-nelson-exchange/

To be fair while reading this, I've seen a lot of historical revision and overgeneralization on both ends. People tend to rewrite things based on their own narratives. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Canadiandude]

33 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

To be fair while reading this, I've seen a lot of historical revision and overgeneralization on both ends. People tend to rewrite things based on their own narratives. 

 

With luv,

BD

Could you perhaps be a little more specific, so as demonstrate who the sides are, how it applies to the links shown, and how the harms committed by these sides are equivalent?

I think understand what you mean, but in truth this somewhat sounds like Bothsidesism which assumes a bipolar debate/axis in which both sides have equally substantive argumentation, evidence; or committed equal degrees of harm.

 

What is the revisionism on the ‘other side’ that is comparable in harm and scope? Who are the ‘sides’ being spoken of? Are the arguments truly equivalent as to the evidences they bring to bear?

I’m sorry, I’m not trying to be difficult, but I often hear similar arguments in discussion of the US January 6th attacks and it makes me wonder what exactly is being equated, and on what grounds.

Edited October 28, 2021 by Canadiandude

[BlueDreams]

9 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

Could you perhaps be a little more specific, so as demonstrate who the sides are, how it applies to the links shown, and how the harms committed by these sides are equivalent?

I think understand what you mean, but in truth this somewhat sounds like Bothsidesism which assumes a bipolar debate/axis in which both sides have equally substantive argumentation, evidence; or committed equal degrees of harm.

 

What is the revisionism on the ‘other side’ that is comparable in harm and scope? Who are the ‘sides’ being spoken of? Are the arguments truly equivalent as to the evidences they bring to bear?

I’m sorry, I’m not trying to be difficult, but I often hear similar arguments in discussion of the US January 6th attacks and it makes me wonder what exactly is being equated, and on what grounds.

I don’t blame you. Bothsidism usually annoys me (somewhat for similar reasons, though it was bothering me well before Jan 6) and I felt myself getting annoyed at myself for doing a “both sides” moment. But I was also lazy and distracted with a couple other things I was reading/listening to. Likewise, I was talking more about the thread than the links given. 
 

I’ve found the dialogue on the last few pages of this thread a little frustrating. My annoyance is in part that I’m really well acquainted with the blacks/priesthood time line. It was a topic of deep importance to me - since I’m half black and had some painful experiences around this- for years. I’ve read just about every negro quote from the 1800’s-1900’s I could come by. Including the most painful ones, in full text. Read books by historians on this. Did deep dives into scripture and had a couple paradigm shifts around them too. But often, often for the sake of spiritual parallels to point to a potential opening for desired changes in the church, this history gets really really simplified.  That could be shown with the ask gramps answer (the oversimplification, not the parallels)…where he insists it’s a “mistake” that Abel was ordained. But what really happened is what webble mentioned in a post plus some. The leaders in the 1800’s to early 1900’s in effect were reorienting the story of the ban (based in part on hearsay, part on faulty social assumptions around scriptural texts, part on no one’s fully sure cuz no one wrote down their reasoning for certain decisions in the end). 
 

several points on this alone, has me going…that’s not fully accurate or is it’s own form of revision. There have been a couple things stated that irritates me as a POC. Namely ones where the underlying assumptions about the scriptures is that there was solid grounds for the ban in the first place based on them and that we’ve now had to “revise” these things or ignore certain passages. There weren’t. We’ve just gotten so used to reading it one way through one (super racist in origin) lens, it’s taken us decades after the 1978 revelation, to move this far past it. This was one of my paradigm shifts BTW. It came because there were always massive holes in the traditional  interpretation of these verses and the explanations I’d been given over the years. It was liberating to finally be able to read them accurately instead of through the lens of American racial stratification problems. Inferring that the old way was actually accurate (if only in inference of us not ignoring scriptures or past prophets etc) feels like nails on a chalkboard for me. 

Ironically I can see that the very parallel given could also be used to point to a cautionary tale about not checking ones social assumptions and codifying them when facing social pressures. In other words it could be used to push against the idea of accepting practices like SSM. (Not saying it should). The oversimplification allows for easy arguments against it. It also comes with an underpinning of doubt based on their perspective of what really should happen or did happen. Which sets up a problematic methodology towards faith: if it doesn’t fit how I view things should go, than it (not me) are likely wrong. Personally I think there can potentially be spiritual harm in that as well. It doesn’t leave a lot of space for correction or outcomes that differ from ones expectations. Which means when it doesn’t go that way, it’s likely more difficult to process than it would have been if there was more space for different end results. It can damage people’s faith and direction. 

On the other end there can be pushing orthodoxy to the point of absolutes that I prefer to have a bit of caution with. It can nudge scriptural accounts further than the words on the page and lead to a lot of the problems that Ty mentioned in his article. Namely focusing on proclaiming truths at the expense of not acknowledging the experiences and costs on others. It doesn’t ask more important questions like how do we treat each other? what assumptions or behaviors do we hold that have no doctrinal basis or are out of sync with God’s priorities? How do we talk about this and interact with this in church and in our personal lives? I’ve heard some solidly cringe worthy discussions in church around this topic that need to be corrected and rooted out. Even if one assumes sealings will stay the same in dynamics, these would not be necessary at all. 

I mentioned I doubt the dynamics of sealings will change drastically on this. I also doubt that the focus on marriage as we currently have had it will stay the same either. There’s this blurry middle that gets lost in the camps of absolutes and assertiveness. It’s not explored a lot because the oxygen get sucked up by these two camps. 

On evidence I think both have holes and strengths that the main arguments here either don’t recognize or ignore for what they see as the higher right thing. In my head, I’ve been arguing or adding nuance or exceptions to both ends of the discussions here. I haven’t jumped in because there’s no way I could keep up with the pace and don’t have the time to invest in it right now.

 

with luv, 

BD 
 

[Canadiandude]

5 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I don’t blame you. Bothsidism usually annoys me (somewhat for similar reasons, though it was bothering me well before Jan 6) and I felt myself getting annoyed at myself for doing a “both sides” moment. But I was also lazy and distracted with a couple other things I was reading/listening to. Likewise, I was talking more about the thread than the links given. 
 

I’ve found the dialogue on the last few pages of this thread a little frustrating. My annoyance is in part that I’m really well acquainted with the blacks/priesthood time line. It was a topic of deep importance to me - since I’m half black and had some painful experiences around this- for years. I’ve read just about every negro quote from the 1800’s-1900’s I could come by. Including the most painful ones, in full text. Read books by historians on this. Did deep dives into scripture and had a couple paradigm shifts around them too. But often, often for the sake of spiritual parallels to point to a potential opening for desired changes in the church, this history gets really really simplified.  That could be shown with the ask gramps answer (the oversimplification, not the parallels)…where he insists it’s a “mistake” that Abel was ordained. But what really happened is what webble mentioned in a post plus some. The leaders in the 1800’s to early 1900’s in effect were reorienting the story of the ban (based in part on hearsay, part on faulty social assumptions around scriptural texts, part on no one’s fully sure cuz no one wrote down their reasoning for certain decisions in the end). 
 

several points on this alone, has me going…that’s not fully accurate or is it’s own form of revision. There have been a couple things stated that irritates me as a POC. Namely ones where the underlying assumptions about the scriptures is that there was solid grounds for the ban in the first place based on them and that we’ve now had to “revise” these things or ignore certain passages. There weren’t. We’ve just gotten so used to reading it one way through one (super racist in origin) lens, it’s taken us decades after the 1978 revelation, to move this far past it. This was one of my paradigm shifts BTW. It came because there were always massive holes in the traditional  interpretation of these verses and the explanations I’d been given over the years. It was liberating to finally be able to read them accurately instead of through the lens of American racial stratification problems. Inferring that the old way was actually accurate (if only in inference of us not ignoring scriptures or past prophets etc) feels like nails on a chalkboard for me. 

Ironically I can see that the very parallel given could also be used to point to a cautionary tale about not checking ones social assumptions and codifying them when facing social pressures. In other words it could be used to push against the idea of accepting practices like SSM. (Not saying it should). The oversimplification allows for easy arguments against it. It also comes with an underpinning of doubt based on their perspective of what really should happen or did happen. Which sets up a problematic methodology towards faith: if it doesn’t fit how I view things should go, than it (not me) are likely wrong. Personally I think there can potentially be spiritual harm in that as well. It doesn’t leave a lot of space for correction or outcomes that differ from ones expectations. Which means when it doesn’t go that way, it’s likely more difficult to process than it would have been if there was more space for different end results. It can damage people’s faith and direction. 

On the other end there can be pushing orthodoxy to the point of absolutes that I prefer to have a bit of caution with. It can nudge scriptural accounts further than the words on the page and lead to a lot of the problems that Ty mentioned in his article. Namely focusing on proclaiming truths at the expense of not acknowledging the experiences and costs on others. It doesn’t ask more important questions like how do we treat each other? what assumptions or behaviors do we hold that have no doctrinal basis or are out of sync with God’s priorities? How do we talk about this and interact with this in church and in our personal lives? I’ve heard some solidly cringe worthy discussions in church around this topic that need to be corrected and rooted out. Even if one assumes sealings will stay the same in dynamics, these would not be necessary at all. 

I mentioned I doubt the dynamics of sealings will change drastically on this. I also doubt that the focus on marriage as we currently have had it will stay the same either. There’s this blurry middle that gets lost in the camps of absolutes and assertiveness. It’s not explored a lot because the oxygen get sucked up by these two camps. 

On evidence I think both have holes and strengths that the main arguments here either don’t recognize or ignore for what they see as the higher right thing. In my head, I’ve been arguing or adding nuance or exceptions to both ends of the discussions here. I haven’t jumped in because there’s no way I could keep up with the pace and don’t have the time to invest in it right now.

 

with luv, 

BD 
 

I think I understand what you are saying but am a bit confused about the SSM part.

Wouldn’t the example of the ordinance ban cause one to question the reasons proffered against SSM?
 

That maybe ancient prophets could have been prejudiced like more recent prophets? Or that the passages commonly used against SSM have been misunderstood?

This question is for yourself specifically. I know the positions taken by most on this thread.

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

I think I understand what you are saying but am a bit confused about the SSM part.

Wouldn’t the example of the ordinance ban cause one to question the reasons proffered against SSM?
 

That maybe ancient prophets could have been prejudiced like more recent prophets? Or that the passages commonly used against SSM have been misunderstood?

This question is for yourself specifically. I know the positions taken by most on this thread.

 I'm trying to remember how I initially thought about it. And I honestly don't remember. For context, Prop 8 happened while I was an undergrad. I remember some serious discussions about it with friends and such. I wasn't comfortable with the stance and didn't want a part with it but also was well aware that I didn't know what was "right" either. I don't remember personally finding the ordinance ban as a compelling comparison. I'd already done a lot of studying on it and knew that there seemed to be differences between them too. And I think the differences led me to think, if they're not a solid parallel is it right to assume it's taking us to the same end result? I also remember going to a very convincing lecture laying out the case for defining marriage between men and women (one that I remember wondering why proponents never showed...but one I also can't fully remember a decade later). I remember leaving the lecture knowing that the case for it in civil society was a lost cause because where we were culturally didn't mesh with it, even though it raised good points. But I don't know if how society goes is necessarily where we should entirely. 

Don't get me wrong, there were similarities. In the sense that something was off with how we taught things, practices around it, assumptions made, etc. But there were differences too...sometimes really big ones. So the comparison often led me to contrast the differences. For women's ordination for example, it often led me to wonder if that was really the only solution for gender disparities/problems in the church. The answer for me after looking for several people for this (think around 30-40 personal explanations) was no. In fact some didn't really address the underlying problems at all via ordination. That then led to a question of: is this really the answer or is there something else God would want for us in this matter? Because I could see the need for change, but not necessarily the changes being suggested by certain advocates. I sometimes feel that way in general around sexual orientation and the church.

 For SSM specifically, I think there was more of a "not enough data" to a lot of my thoughts. I still often feel that way to some degree. I sense I'm missing stuff and when I'm missing data points I'm cautious to move to an absolute position. It reduces your ability to learn IMHO. 

There were things I've had a solid belief in to the point that I have greater certainty in them. Usually from personal experiences. Such as I know there's something very sacred about family and that there are higher purposes to the connection between male-female relationships...even if I don't fully get why. I sense it in my own marriage and how we formed and in my mission especially, but there's other circumstances that it's come up. I don't think several current messages about sexuality, expression, and relationships in our current social atmosphere are correct or even fully healthy. This again comes from experiences of working directly with some of these concerns as a therapist specializing in sexual concerns. It can be a little too individualistic, casual, pleasure-focused, etc. But the opposite can also be said, I feel there's things we miss or over emphasize that are problematic to say the least.   

I don't doubt that prophets in the past held their own biases...they obviously did. I have a hard time saying it would be parallel to current ones because the cultural reference point is so different from us now that it likely manifested in very different ways. 
Last one, I'm curious what scriptures you're picturing that are commonly used against SSM. I see references to Moses 3 here, but were there ones you specifically had in mind?

With luv,
BD

[Teancum]

On 10/26/2021 at 4:37 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Remind me when plural marriage started (1831) vs when it was presented and ratified again (1852)?

So only “official” revelations are ratified? So where did plural marriage fall for 20 years before it was ratified. Was it not official? 

Not sure if you received an answer.  Plural marriage started in Nauvoo in the early 1840s though allegedly Fanny Alger was a "plural" wife. So that is 1831. Personally I think that is a backpedal.  I believe the Church went public on polygamy in 1852 but D&C 132 was not added till the 1870s.

[Teancum]

On 10/26/2021 at 7:05 PM, Stargazer said:

Point!

Or is it?  

More accurate to say it wasn't just "gay couples" it was "gay married". Slight difference. And it wasn't a ban. It was a delay.

So a unmarried gay couple's kid could have been baptized and not delayed?  And keep in mind they had to renounce their parents marriage.

 

On 10/26/2021 at 7:05 PM, Stargazer said:

So, you're thinking that every policy variation, no matter how small, requires ratification by the entire church? So, when the policy that required those who married civilly wait a year to be sealed in the temple was discontinued, that needed to be put before the church? How about the policy regarding how long temple recommends are valid (now 2 years)? 

I don't think every policy needs to be presented to the entire church.

 

On 10/26/2021 at 7:05 PM, Stargazer said:

Anyway, what if the policy about requiring children of gay married persons waiting until age 18 had actually been something the Lord approved? Could not the Lord later revoke it? He removed the keys to plural marriage, after all, did He not? And without a general ratification, apparently.

What ifs are wonderful.  Gets us out of a lot of sticky problems.  If you want to believe God gave a revelation on the policy then a few years later changed his mind more power to you.  That is not a God I can trust.

On 10/26/2021 at 7:05 PM, Stargazer said:

DC 56:4 - Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord.

This and the happiness letter are such a wonder power play.  The one who claims God is speaking through him sure can do just about whatever he wants because God says so.

On 10/26/2021 at 7:05 PM, Stargazer said:

In context, He revoked His command because of peoples stiffneckedness. Interestingly a similar situation to the Nov. 5th thing you cite. 

No God involved here. The leaders messed up. So they reversed course. They would be better off just to say they made a mistake.

On 10/26/2021 at 7:05 PM, Stargazer said:

DC 58:32-33 - I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing. Then they say in their hearts: This is not the work of the Lord, for his promises are not fulfilled. But wo unto such, for their reward lurketh beneath, and not from above.

Is the Lord not allowed to let his servants modify policy to suit the situation?

Of course not. Because the Lord is fiction to some people. And He must do everything the same way He did it eight thousand years ago.  Or last week.  

That would make Him somewhat less than omnipotent, wouldn't it?

 

 

 

Many here don't think the LDS God is omnipotent nor omniscient.

[Teancum]

On 10/27/2021 at 12:41 PM, Stormin' Mormon said:

Was plural marriage taught openly to the church at the time of William Law?  When it was taught openly did it have the backing of all 15 men in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve?

Does it matter?

[Scott Lloyd]

On 10/27/2021 at 2:12 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

That’s quite a convoluted dodge of what I thought was a simple question. 
 

Let me be more explicit: Can you cite EVEN ONE authoritative statement from prophets/apostles supporting the baseless supposition that the Church will one day redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships? 
 

Failure to give a direct, candid and good-faith answer is quite telling. 

 

On 10/27/2021 at 10:07 AM, The Nehor said:

It was an answer to a specific question you asked. You kept it vague either out of stating it too quickly or that the broadness of the question would make it a more comprehensive defense of the permanence of all marriage traditions, laws, and customs. I was showing that prophets have considered a change in some ways even more extreme. Call it a dodge if you want but you can only blame yourself for walking into it which is QUITE TELLING whatever that is supposed to mean.

So I’ll take this as an admission that you cannot cite EVEN ONE authoritative statement from prophets/apostles supporting the baseless supposition that the Church will one day redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships.  

[Scott Lloyd]

On 10/27/2021 at 7:38 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Can you cite EVEN ONE authoritative statement after the start of the ban from prophets/apostles prior to 1950 (and the start of the civil rights movement) supporting the baseless supposition that any black man of African descent would get the priesthood before it was given to every single male ever to be born of every other race?

I’ll take your failure to answer my question as tacit admission that you can’t cite even one authoritative statement from a senior Church leader supporting the baseless supposition that marriage will one day be redefined in the Church of Jesus Christ to include same-sex relationships. 

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ll take your failure to answer my question as tacit admission that you can’t cite even one authoritative statement from a senior Church leader supporting the baseless supposition that marriage will one day be redefined in the Church of Jesus Christ to include same-sex relationships. 

I’ll take your inability to admit that you initially badly worded your question because it sounded better and more conclusive if you left it the way it was rather than be specific to be a tacit admission that you made a mistake in doing so. I will take this declaration of victory as a “VERY TELLING” indicator that you are humiliated by this and want to declare a win quickly so you can move past this tactical mistake.

 

See? I can randomly declare victory too. I just didn’t do it out of rhetorical cowardice.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I’ll take your inability to admit that you initially badly worded your question because it sounded better and more conclusive if you left it the way it was rather than be specific to be a tacit admission that you made a mistake in doing so. I will take this declaration of victory as a “VERY TELLING” indicator that you are humiliated by this and want to declare a win quickly so you can move past this tactical mistake.

 

See? I can randomly declare victory too. I just didn’t do it out of rhetorical cowardice.

I don’t have any indication so far that anybody other than you, given the context of the conversation, misconstrued what I was saying. SU, the only other person to respond, apparently understood my wording just fine, though he disagreed with me. 

Edited October 29, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t have any indication so far that anybody other than you, given the context of the conversation, misconstrued what I was saying. SU, the only other person to respond, apparently understood my wording just fine, though he disagreed with me. 

I didn’t misconstrue it. I knew what you meant. You thought you had an impossible standard of evidence, demanded it, and then smugly sat back to watch others flail and be unable to meet it. The problem is that you were vague in the question and I already shared why I think you were vague. You wanted to make it sound like your “victory” was more general than it was so it took me all of 20 seconds to remember two things that showed you were possibly wrong.

I don’t actually believe that the concubine thing will ever happen but you opened the door wide enough that it fits.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I didn’t misconstrue it. I knew what you meant. You thought you had an impossible standard of evidence, demanded it, and then smugly sat back to watch others flail and be unable to meet it. The problem is that you were vague in the question and I already shared why I think you were vague. You wanted to make it sound like your “victory” was more general than it was so it took me all of 20 seconds to remember two things that showed you were possibly wrong.

I don’t actually believe that the concubine thing will ever happen but you opened the door wide enough that it fits.

From Oxford Languages online:

“Definitions of misconstrual. a kind of misinterpretation resulting from putting a wrong construction on words or actions (often deliberately)”

So it’s still a misconstrual, even if done deliberately. The difference is whether or not ill will is involved. 

Edited October 30, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

From Oxford Languages online:

“Definitions of misconstrual. a kind of misinterpretation resulting from putting a wrong construction on words or actions (often deliberately)”

So it’s still a misconstrual, even if done deliberately. The difference is whether or not ill will is involved. 

I didn’t put a wrong construction on the words. I used the correct one. I just knew that you almost certainly didn’t mean what you actually typed.

So not misconstrued. Nice try though.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I didn’t put a wrong construction on the words. I used the correct one. I just knew that you almost certainly didn’t mean what you actually typed.

So not misconstrued. Nice try though.

Meaning is substantially determined from context; a word or phrase that has a certain meaning in one context can have quite a different one in another. If you (and others) knew what I meant, but you deliberately put the wrong interpretation on it, then by definition, you didn’t use “the correct one.” 

Say, for example, a few of us on this board are having a discussion, the topic of which is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As we are accustomed to doing here, we shorten the term to “the Church,” knowing that in the context of our discussion, all the participants understand that those two words mean The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You cannot then come along and credibly assign some other meaning to it, then weirdly boast of some rhetorical triumph because, obviously motivated by ill will, you have arrogated to yourself the role of decreeing what THE one and only  “correct” meaning is, regardless of context. 

 

Edited October 30, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Meaning is substantially determined from context; a word or phrase that has a certain meaning in one context can have quite a different one in another. If you (and others) knew what I meant, but you deliberately put the wrong interpretation on it, then by definition, you didn’t use “the correct one.” 

Say, for example, a few of us on this board are having a discussion, the topic of which is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As we are accustomed to doing here, we shorten the term to “the Church,” knowing that in the context of our discussion, all the participants understand that those two words mean The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You cannot then come along and credibly assign some other meaning to it, then weirdly boast of some rhetorical triumph because, obviously motivated by ill will, you have arrogated to yourself the role of decreeing what THE one and only  “correct” meaning is, regardless of context. 

 

I used ‘the literal one’ because you were being petulant and disingenuously demanding evidence you believed did not exist. Getting peeved because someone responds to a disingenuous demand with a disingenuous reply (that is technically correct) is silly. Trying to claim the moral high ground after doing so is throwing stones from a glass house that is also built on the sand.

[nuclearfuels]

On 10/21/2021 at 10:54 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

It's not going to happen, and if it did happen, it would be an act of apostasy equivalent to what happened in the early centuries following the deaths of the apostles.

I agree. 100%

I wonder though would plural marriage, re-institutionalized via polyamory being legalized, then be seen as apostasy by those advocating for marriage redefinitions?

 

[Tacenda]

I've not read Elder Holland's book that this supposed quote came from. Wondering if anyone has and maybe you can give more context. It feels so racist, what he said. But back then, like Brigham Young, maybe a lot were racist sadly. But very disappointing to read it. Sorry to be a downer. But it's surely time we make changes before we're back there again, the racists seem to be crawling out of the rocks again, not to be political, but I worry. 

On the Lord’s Errand: Memoirs of Thomas S. Monson (1985)

“In about 1956 we recognized that our neighborhood was dete­riorating. We observed this one Halloween by the nature of the people who came in the guise of ‘Trick or Treat.’ The minority elements were moving into the area where we lived, and many of the old-time families had long since moved away. Seeking coun­sel, I visited with Mark E. Peterson, who for many years had been the General Manager of the Deseret News. O. Preston Robinson, my former professor of marketing at the University of Utah, had suc­ceeded Brother Petersen as the General Manager at the News. As I mentioned to Mark my dilemma, wondering if it would be unfair for me to move, he said simply, ‘Your obligation to that area is concluded. Why don’t you build a house in my ward?’”

Edited October 31, 2021 by Tacenda

[The Nehor]

19 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

I agree. 100%

I wonder though would plural marriage, re-institutionalized via polyamory being legalized, then be seen as apostasy by those advocating for marriage redefinitions?

 

Probably not.

[Stargazer]

On 10/27/2021 at 1:22 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Nope. That’s the point I’m arguing against! The November 5th change was described as a revelation. Clearly something does not need to be put to the sustaining vote of the church to count as a revelation. Thank you for making my point. 

Well, I guess I was confused by what you said, then.

[Stargazer]

On 10/27/2021 at 2:35 AM, california boy said:

Sorry, your spin isn't really supported by the data taken at the time the revelation was announced.  Both you and Scott are wrong.

Wrong? I wasn't wrong about my own reaction and my own feelings and expectations. If that many were totally blindsided, dazed, and confused, that surprises me. The only thing that surprised me in the event was the moment. 

The English language is imprecise in some ways. The word "surprise" can take on different connotations, depending on context. One may be surprised by the death of a loved one, but the surprise differs depending upon the degree of expectation. One might be surprised by the sudden and unexpected death of someone who one knew was very very ill, or surprised by the death of someone who was taken by an automobile accident. I cannot speak for others, because I never discussed the subject much with other members, but my surprise in this instance was more like the first kind than the second. 

[nuclearfuels]

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

On 10/30/2021 at 10:04 PM, nuclearfuels said:

I agree. 100%

I wonder though would plural marriage, re-institutionalized via polyamory being legalized, then be seen as apostasy by those advocating for marriage redefinitions?

 

Probably not.

I'm not sure they'd be satisfied but we'll see