Uncomfortable Truths and how we deal with them

[The Nehor]

Mandatory missions for sisters is the only thing I can see as a possible downside to ordination.

Edit: Instead of mandatory should have said “expected”.

Edited March 2, 2022 by The Nehor

[kimpearson]

Since I made the accusation of gaslighting I will give a go to clarify.  Having followed this board for awhile before participating fully, my impression is that most of you are well versed in the doctrine, practices and policies of the Church.  When I offered the example of what I see as truth or doctrine in the Church currently which is no woman can preside over a man in a priesthood calling, I was being very clear.  No priesthood calling (bishop, quorum president including stake president, temple president, mission president) or office (deacon, teacher, priest, elder, high priest ) has in its line of authority to preside a woman.  But what did many of you do, instantly went to the idea that women presiding in primary or relief society are presiding over men in their priesthood calling.  I have to believe in my heart based on the amount of discussion on this board that many of you knew the point I was making but you didn't want to acknowledge the truth of that.  So you tried to create an argument to prove my statement false when if fact it wasn't.  I am not so arrogant to think I know everything but if I am going to make a statement I think is truth, I am going to carefully research it before I make it.  All of you have access to the handbook of instructions and the guidance on priesthood offices and callings which clearly state that only men preside over these offices and callings.  You also all know that a primary president or relief society president cannot set any one apart.  Neither can they have worthiness interviews.  Neither can they take church disciplinary action.  No women that sits on any counsel that includes men, presides in that counsel.  No woman makes the final decision of who gets called to callings.  No woman can authorize ordinances, temple recommends or young people to serve missions.   Now I knowing that many of you know all of this, can only assume you were trying intentionally to tell me I was wrong when I was right.  That is gaslighting.

Now I fully expect some of you to try and respond that you didn't understand my original statement.  For some of you that might be true, but again, based on all of your discussions, your are well informed individuals who knew just what you were doing.  That doesn't make you evil.  It just makes you human because as I said.  It is uncomfortable to admit the role of women and the priesthood based on our current understanding of the skills and talents of women that have conclusively demonstrated they would use the priesthood just as effectively as men and we have no explanation why they can't.

[Rain]

5 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

First, why would any woman want the priesthood?  Most of the time it involves a lot of meetings and time away from family. 
 

Second, the scriptures do not mention the ordination of woman.  The church is following the pattern of the scriptures.  If a change is to come, it can only be by revelation.  It would occur by no other way.  That is the reason for the existence of prophets who lead the church.  God does not run the church by special interest groups who fight for their own pet causes. 
 

Frankly I would love a revelation the releases the men from the priesthood and gives all of the responsibility to women.  As long as exaltation is still there at the end, it’s all good to me.  
 

I also believe for every woman out there who wants ordination, the are at least 5 who are praying that it does not happen.  They have enough on their plate already.

 

4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Ok but that is like 1% of the time you exercise the priesthood for.  95% of the time you are in meetings.  If women get the priesthood and men are released from it, think of all the free time we get

"“If we live for it, ours can be a power given us from our Heavenly Father that will bring peace to a troubled household. Ours can be a power that will bless and comfort little children, that will bring sleep to tearstained eyes in the wee hours of the morning. Ours can be the power that will bring happiness to a family home evening, the power to calm the unsettled nerves of a tired wife. Ours can be the power that will give direction to a confused and vulnerable teenager. Ours, the power to bless a daughter before she goes on her first date or before her temple marriage, or to bless a son before his departure for a mission or college. Ours, my young brethren, can be the power to stop evil thoughts of a group of boys gathered together in vulgar conversation. Ours can be the power to heal the sick and comfort the lonely. These are some of the important purposes of the priesthood” (H. Burke Peterson, in Conference Report, Apr. 1976, 50–51; or Ensign, May 1976, 33)."

-----

Abraham 1:2 "And, finding there was greater ^ahappiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of ^brighteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great ^cknowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many ^dnations, a prince of peace, and ^edesiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a ^fHigh Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers."

------

" I desire to impress upon you the fact that it does not make any difference whether a man is a priest or an apostle, if he magnifies his calling. A priest holds the key of the ministering of angels. Never in my life, as an apostle, as a seventy, or as an elder, have I ever had more of the protection of the Lord than while holding the office as a priest. The Lord revealed to me by visions, by revelations, and by the Holy Spirit, many things that lay before me”" (Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, pp. 299–300).

------

"Invite a priest or returned missionary to bear testimony of the gift of the priesthood and the joy that comes from participating in a baptism. Encourage the older boys to look forward to performing priesthood ordinances. "

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=110&sourceId=537e925cf971c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=21bc9fbee98db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

 

I'm not one wanting to be ordained.  My feelings are along the lines with BlueDreams of wanting to know more about a divine womanhood.

But given all the quotes and stories (and there are tons more) about the priesthood it is no wonder that some women want to be ordained. Why treat the gift of God's power and authority like slime you don't want to have on your fingers?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, kimpearson said:

When I offered the example of what I see as truth or doctrine in the Church currently which is no woman can preside over a man in a priesthood calling, I was being very clear.

And yet it was not as clear to others as you appear to think….one explicitly said so and others responded to her as if they interpreted your comment the same way…

Quote

For the bolded fact, I'm not exactly sure what you are saying but if you are saying that women cannot preside where any man who holds the priesthood is present, that is false.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74370-uncomfortable-truths-and-how-we-deal-with-them/?do=findComment&comment=1210083660

As to why it wasn’t clear to others, I can’t say, but for me I saw a variety of possible meanings”a man in a priesthood calling”, all having been used in past conversations in my experience….A priesthood calling could be 1) the result of being called through the authority of the priesthood, iow a primary teacher has been called and set apart by the priesthood so it is a priesthood calling (not a very common usage but it was very relevant to their argument that all things were done by and through the priesthood in our Church), or 2) “a man in a priesthood calling” could mean a man acting in a priesthood office, or 3) it could be a man in a calling that requires a priesthood holder, or 4) last, it was simply a way of saying a man has the priesthood.  I think in most cases in my experience most use it to mean the second (they are Bishop, EQP, etc) or the third (male missionary).  And in fact, I have gotten into a number of arguments with critics and others (mostly nonmembers taunting us about the silliness of this belief they insist we have, but also some exmembers who are dismissive towards the Priesthood and even a few faithful members who are very confused for some reason) who insist that our belief is any priesthood ordination trumps any authority a woman or nonmember has in any situation.  Of course, nonmembers wouldn’t recognize such authorities, but the critics seem to expect Latter- day Saint women are sitting around waiting to be told by deacons what they should be doing with their lives (hyperbole of course, but some have come close) while I am guessing they have never actually seen a deacon boss around a grown woman…though when I pointed that out as evidence he was wrong to one critic, his response was all that meant was we weren’t faithful to our own covenants.

Also you were not the only one in the conversation, there were others who appeared to me to assume a woman could never preside and that was the first clarification I was spending my time on.  I will be honest and state I wasn’t particularly interested originally in adding to your conversation because of the way you had constructed it.  It came across to me as more a debate than exploration.

You then made this statement.

Quote

Just reviewed the handbook and the bishop is head of the primary.  No statement that even comes close to indicating that primary president presides over anybody.  The bishop presides over relief society, Sunday school, young women's and young men's.. 

My bold….I should have quoted what parts of your post I responding to, because most of it was not problematic or too limited in my view.  But the way you phrased things made it appear you were taking it further than appropriate in a couple of points.  And this was inaccurate in my view, so triggered my fact checking mode.   So I responded by pointing to the language in the handbook showing she can and does preside.

Then you said this…

Quote

there is no presiding priesthood authority in the meeting but merely women and men called by priesthood authority to serve in callings.

But we are now taught that women have priesthood authority as it is the only thing that can give authority in the Church, so even if women do not hold a priesthood office, since they preside in their meetings unless there is a higher priesthood authority present who has stewardship over them, they technically have presiding priesthood authority.  So I addressed that in the following post providing a quote to back up my position. https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74370-uncomfortable-truths-and-how-we-deal-with-them/?do=findComment&comment=1210083690  

Since I see stewardship as the foundation of the presiding hierarchy rather than priesthood office, I added a bit of that.

 

I didn’t disagree with all you said just because I disagreed with parts of it.

The two additional posts showing the language of women presiding was to provide further info for cal boy if he was interested as well as to underline my point addressing your comment there was no evidence the “primary president presides over anybody”.  I probably should have requested clarification if you actually meant “anybody” or if you misspoke, but it felt very emphatic, so I assumed you meant what you said.

Edited March 2, 2022 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 3/1/2022 at 10:28 AM, Hamba Tuhan said:

I also think it's possible that the 'answer' doesn't fit neatly on either side of the perceived aisle.

Elder Corbitt in his essay on race specifically references John 9 in relation to this matter:

Here's his exact quote:

Quote

How does this story relate to the priesthood ban? I believe when we analyze the priesthood ban in a way that seeks to assign blame, either to people of African descent or to early leaders of the Church—and blame has been assigned to both groups—we become distracted. We miss the Lord’s grander, more eternal vision and opportunity. We essentially ask, “Master, who did sin, black people or the early Church leaders, that the priesthood ban was imposed?” I believe if the Savior stood beside us, His answer would be just as forward-looking and glorious as His response to His disciples’ question about the blind man: “Neither have my black children sinned, nor the prophets: but that the power of God should be made manifest through a miraculous work.”

 

[BlueDreams]

9 hours ago, kimpearson said:

 Now I knowing that many of you know all of this, can only assume you were trying intentionally to tell me I was wrong when I was right.  That is gaslighting.

 

OR…your comment was vague enough that it could be taken 3-4 different ways. I sincerely didn’t first think of the several points you just mentioned. I don’t get why one needs to jump to the worse case scenario of intentionally misdirecting or trying to make you believe a falsehood. If we’re well informed and generally sincere posters, could there not be a benefit of the doubt on your end that we’ve missed what you were trying to convey? Why is the only conclusion we must all simultaneously be gaslighting you? 

I also believe very strongly with this specific topic to have nuance and specificity. The details have been important…both to recognize what has been there (which is often loosely interpreted to fit ones own views), what is there (which is often lost or missed), and what could be there (which is found by seeing what really is about priesthood ordination and what is more current policy). Which is why I look for exceptions to blanket statements in general.  

9 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Now I fully expect some of you to try and respond that you didn't understand my original statement.  For some of you that might be true, but again, based on all of your discussions, your are well informed individuals who knew just what you were doing.  That doesn't make you evil. 

It doesn’t make one evil, but it’s still a serious claim and morally wrong. A type of wrong i would never intentionally do for what I’ve seen it do to others. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

Edited March 2, 2022 by BlueDreams

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

 

OR…your comment was vague enough that it could be taken 3-4 different ways.

BD 

Ding ding ding ding ding.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

OR…your comment was vague enough that it could be taken 3-4 different ways. I sincerely didn’t first think of the several points you just mentioned. I don’t get why one needs to jump to the worse case scenario of intentionally misdirecting or trying to make you believe a falsehood. If we’re well informed and generally sincere posters, could there not be a benefit of the doubt on your end that we’ve missed what you were trying to convey? Why is the only conclusion we must all simultaneously be gaslighting you? 

 

Why would we even try?  What would we accomplish that wouldn’t be just as likely accomplished by just not responding?  Most posters here have been here quite awhile and are well aware of the likelihood of changing someone’s opinion online, especially those who start out with highly developed and earnest opinions.  I could see a belief that we might want to prevent lurkers from being persuaded, but less exposure would occur if there was no challenge and therefore little interest to draw many lurkers’ attention (my guess being the entertainment and perhaps informational value of watching debates is a big reason for reading without posting themselves), no debate means not much attention given to a particular post and the thread quickly moves to the next page.  Problem solved with no investment of time and no need to damage our souls by choosing to lie.

The only reason you have given for why anyone would do this is to avoid discomfort. What better way is there to avoid discomfort than to simply ignore your posts if they actually made anyone uncomfortable?

You should consider that those of us who have been here on the board for a long time have managed to stick around by developing a thick skin if we didn’t have one before. We aren’t forced to post, we aren’t forced to respond, we pick and choose what we want to engage with. There are massive amounts of challenges to faith and belief positions when one starts adding up over a decade of posting (pretty sure almost, if not all who were responding to you have been here that long); what you posted was nothing that hasn’t been discussed a dozen or more times, so unlikely anyone was thrown by any of your points.

 Everyone who stays longer than a week knows their opinions and beliefs are going to be challenged over and over again….and yet they stay.  People stay where they are comfortable, which implies they are pretty comfortable with disagreement and challenges to their beliefs.  I think you need to find another reason why we would respond in the way we did.

And maybe look at your own response and ask why you went to gaslighting first rather than assuming maybe you left out enough details it was confusing.  And are now doubling down on your accusation.  What need do you have to defend your position?

Edited March 2, 2022 by Calm

[kimpearson]

If it makes any difference, I never felt Calm and Bluedreams were gaslighting me.  I don't want to call anyone out specifically because the truth is I can't be hundred percent sure what motives anyone truly has.  I just wanted to call out a vibe I was feeling from some of the comments.  I probably let a few comments color my view of all the comments.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

never felt Calm and Bluedreams were gaslighting me

If you can accept that we two did not understand what you meant, why is it so hard to believe that others did not as well even if their style seemed more aggressive or whatever to you?  It can’t be because we are less informed or invested in the topic.   

Edited March 2, 2022 by Calm

[MrShorty]

On 3/1/2022 at 5:48 PM, carbon dioxide said:

First, why would any woman want the priesthood?  Most of the time it involves a lot of meetings and time away from family. 

In many ways, I agree with this, though I would probably make it gender neutral. Why would any person (male or female) want the priesthood? Priesthood makes you eligible for "Church government" type callings which are stressful, require a lot of time, and all kinds of other problems.

For me, this came to a head fall 2019 in response to Pres. Nelson's "Spiritual Treasures" talk in Fall GC. After Pres. Nelson described how women use priesthood power without ordination to serve in the Church, to serve their families and friends, and to call upon heaven for healing (their own and others) and other good gifts, I began to wonder what the point of my own ordination was. It seems that all of the good things I want to do fit into what good women can do. I don't want to serve in Church government, either, so what is the real significance of my ordination. As I thought further, I could see that my ordination does two basic things:

1) I can perform official ordinances like administering the Sacrament and baptize/confirm/etc. my own children (who are not all past those milestones, so that won't be pertinent unless/until grandchildren enter the picture and I am potentially asked to perform those ordinances for them). How important is it for me to perform these ordinances for my children? When Church leaders suggested at the beginning of the pandemic that remembering the Savior and the covenants while pondering the sacrament prayers was an acceptable substitute for the formal ordinance for those who did not have ready access to an ordained priesthood holder, it sent me to wondering about the significance of the formal ordinance/ritual against less formal practices (maybe like whether prayers and good thoughts are as effective for sick people as the formal priesthood anointing/sealing ordinance.

2) I am eligible for Church government (after being ordained a High Priest). As noted above, I have no desire to be called into these kinds of callings. If "lack of desire to serve in Church government" is sufficient justification for not ordaining a woman, why am I ordained? Why do we assume that all women do not feel a desire (for righteous reasons) to serve in Church government where they feel that their administrative and pastoral skills could be put to best use?

In short, I don't see much that being ordained actually does for me beyond a few rituals. Everything else that seems unique to being ordained to the priesthood, is not appealing. I could conceivable be just as effective as a disciple of Christ doing the "works of Christ" in the world with or without ordination.

[Tacenda]

This is uncomfortable to me, hopefully Kim doesn't mind if I share. Question...are there background checks on Elder's Quorum presidents? There wasn't one when my husband was one years ago, that I know of. 

This sicko shouldn't have been in this kind of position, and hopefully the church will change the rules if there isn't in place, background checks.

https://www.fox9.com/news/from-registered-sex-offender-to-church-leader?fbclid=IwAR3KI32j6OdlGFGm1KU7iZONrbIa8urkTdxA-K4m4zTWYhbzbDH_r52IZDM

Edited March 4, 2022 by Tacenda

[Raingirl]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

This is uncomfortable to me, hopefully Kim doesn't mind if I share. Question...are there background checks on Elder's Quorum presidents? There wasn't one when my husband was one years ago, that I know of. 

This sicko shouldn't have been in this kind of position, and hopefully the church will change the rules if there isn't in place, background checks.

https://www.fox9.com/news/from-registered-sex-offender-to-church-leader?fbclid=IwAR3KI32j6OdlGFGm1KU7iZONrbIa8urkTdxA-K4m4zTWYhbzbDH_r52IZDM

I thought that the records of members who are registered sex offenders were annotated to alert local leaders any time they moved. That was apparently not the case here. That’s terrible. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This is uncomfortable to me, hopefully Kim doesn't mind if I share. Question...are there background checks on Elder's Quorum presidents? There wasn't one when my husband was one years ago, that I know of. 

This sicko shouldn't have been in this kind of position, and hopefully the church will change the rules if there isn't in place, background checks.

https://www.fox9.com/news/from-registered-sex-offender-to-church-leader?fbclid=IwAR3KI32j6OdlGFGm1KU7iZONrbIa8urkTdxA-K4m4zTWYhbzbDH_r52IZDM

That bishop that did not annotate his record was an idiot.  I think we've come a long way in how we view this than how it was in 2003 but we still have a long way to go.  It makes me angry that his Utah bishop didn't do what he was supposed to do.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

That bishop that did not annotate his record was an idiot.  I think we've come a long way in how we view this than how it was in 2003 but we still have a long way to go.  It makes me angry that his Utah bishop didn't do what he was supposed to do.

It's not in the bishop's hands. He (or a stake president) can recommend, but the Church doesn't always do it. 

I won't go into details, but I was very dismayed to find that a record that I had been told would be annotated by a Kirton McConkie attorney (hotline call, about three years ago or so) was not. I found out because I first got a call about two years after my release from Kirton McConkie following up (they were going through notes). I was surprised to learn that the record had not been annotated. I then received a call from the man's bishop in another state. The man had received the Melchizedek priesthood, and then the annotation appeared, and Salt Lake told him to call me. He felt that the young man was past it, and should be able to move on. I emphasized that he should never have callings involving children or youth. 

I was disappointed in the breakdown of the process. When I spoke with a head attorney on the hotline years before, he told me that he himself would annotate the record (apparently they have that capability, to protect the Church and others legally). Our stake president sent a letter as well. 

I wouldn't necessarily lay it at the bishop's feet, depending on circumstances. 

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's not in the bishop's hands. He (or a stake president) can recommend, but the Church doesn't always do it. 

I won't go into details, but I was very dismayed to find that a record that I had been told would be annotated by a Kirton McConkie attorney (hotline call, about three years ago or so) was not. I found out because I first got a call about two years after my release from Kirton McConkie following up (they were going through notes). I was surprised to learn that the record had not been annotated. I then received a call from the man's bishop in another state. The man had received the Melchizedek priesthood, and then the annotation appeared, and Salt Lake told him to call me. He felt that the young man was past it, and should be able to move on. I emphasized that he should never have callings involving children or youth. 

I was disappointed in the breakdown of the process. When I spoke with a head attorney on the hotline years before, he told me that he himself would annotate the record (apparently they have that capability, to protect the Church and others legally). Our stake president sent a letter as well. 

I wouldn't necessarily lay it at the bishop's feet, depending on circumstances. 

It sounds like the annotation fell through the cracks on your case. Hopefully that doesn’t happen often. 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It sounds like the annotation fell through the cracks on your case. Hopefully that doesn’t happen often. 

I don't think it happens very often. It's just in our case, "the top" was aware of it. There were at least five victim families that we knew of. The abuse happened before my time, and the man wasn't a member of my ward, but the victim families were all current or former members of the ward. Given how many instances there were, and the premeditation and planning, he should have been disciplined and his records annotated. The county prosecutor wouldn't press charges because the victims were too young to testify (it was self-confessions, including a recorded confession to one of the parents. And a long texting thread apologizing to one of the mothers. Prosecutors didn't like the case even with that, without victims testifying). 

[mfbukowski]

On 3/1/2022 at 10:08 PM, kimpearson said:

Since I made the accusation of gaslighting I will give a go to clarify.  Having followed this board for awhile before participating fully, my impression is that most of you are well versed in the doctrine, practices and policies of the Church.  When I offered the example of what I see as truth or doctrine in the Church currently which is no woman can preside over a man in a priesthood calling, I was being very clear.  No priesthood calling (bishop, quorum president including stake president, temple president, mission president) or office (deacon, teacher, priest, elder, high priest ) has in its line of authority to preside a woman.  But what did many of you do, instantly went to the idea that women presiding in primary or relief society are presiding over men in their priesthood calling.  I have to believe in my heart based on the amount of discussion on this board that many of you knew the point I was making but you didn't want to acknowledge the truth of that.  So you tried to create an argument to prove my statement false when if fact it wasn't.  I am not so arrogant to think I know everything but if I am going to make a statement I think is truth, I am going to carefully research it before I make it.  All of you have access to the handbook of instructions and the guidance on priesthood offices and callings which clearly state that only men preside over these offices and callings.  You also all know that a primary president or relief society president cannot set any one apart.  Neither can they have worthiness interviews.  Neither can they take church disciplinary action.  No women that sits on any counsel that includes men, presides in that counsel.  No woman makes the final decision of who gets called to callings.  No woman can authorize ordinances, temple recommends or young people to serve missions.   Now I knowing that many of you know all of this, can only assume you were trying intentionally to tell me I was wrong when I was right.  That is gaslighting.

Now I fully expect some of you to try and respond that you didn't understand my original statement.  For some of you that might be true, but again, based on all of your discussions, your are well informed individuals who knew just what you were doing.  That doesn't make you evil.  It just makes you human because as I said.  It is uncomfortable to admit the role of women and the priesthood based on our current understanding of the skills and talents of women that have conclusively demonstrated they would use the priesthood just as effectively as men and we have no explanation why they can't.

It's a semantic error about the word "preside"

 

You should have defined it better.

Yes we ALL know that women do not have the priesthood, and so ultimately do not "preside", but that is an obvious non-point that everyone knows. It's like saying the sky is blue, but tomorrow it might be white, and starting a discussion on whether or not the sky is blue.

Yet in another sense, women DO preside over men in their auxiliaries

If you use ambiguous words relying on ambiguity to make your point, you get misunderstood.

 

[Tacenda]

I guess I'm playing the apologist on a MS's private FB group which someone posted a quote by Brigham Young (below) that it's okay for siblings to marry one another. I asked the poster to please provide more proof. And she provided a diary by George Cannon's son Abraham H. Cannon with several entries that made it difficult to find.

Do any of you know how true this was, or was it more family sealings? I thought I knew everything there was to know. Also, sorry for the meme below, it's what was posted.

Edited March 25, 2022 by Tacenda

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I guess I'm playing the apologist on a MS's private FB group which someone posted a quote by Brigham Young (below) that it's okay for siblings to marry one another. I asked the poster to please provide more proof. And she provided a diary by George Cannon's son Abraham H. Cannon with several entries that made it difficult to find.

Do any of you know how true this was, or was it more family sealings? I thought I knew everything there was to know. Also, sorry for the meme below, it's what was posted.

It seems that he is talking about all the posterity of Adam and Eve as brothers and sisters.  

"There are none others for me to marry but my sisters."   This statement could only be true in that context.  

What do you think, sister? 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I guess I'm playing the apologist on a MS's private FB group which someone posted a quote by Brigham Young (below) that it's okay for siblings to marry one another. I asked the poster to please provide more proof. And she provided a diary by George Cannon's son Abraham H. Cannon with several entries that made it difficult to find.

Do any of you know how true this was, or was it more family sealings? I thought I knew everything there was to know. Also, sorry for the meme below, it's what was posted.

I'm with pogi, this seems obvious that he's talking about how we are all related through adam and eve.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

It seems that he is talking about all the posterity of Adam and Eve as brothers and sisters.  

"There are none others for me to marry but my sisters."   This statement could only be true in that context.  

What do you think, sister? 

 

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm with pogi, this seems obvious that he's talking about how we are all related through adam and eve.

Thanks for you feedback, I gave that definition on a post back to this person, we'll see what she comes up with.

[JustAnAustralian]

The actual book makes it clear what he's talking about. (spirits being brothers and sisters, and bodies being brothers and sisters (offspring of adamant and eve etc))

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=LkRZGQ8oO8IC&pg=PA362&lpg=PA362&dq="then+i+reckon+that+the+children+of+adam+and+eve"&source=bl&ots=31Y2ixd3rg&sig=ACfU3U0zofUXD18FvL8aypjZQkNkW2Nq9g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjxleS7ruL2AhXbR2wGHSTYBIYQ6AF6BAgREAM#v=onepage&q&f=false

Edited March 25, 2022 by JustAnAustralian

[Rain]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I guess I'm playing the apologist on a MS's private FB group which someone posted a quote by Brigham Young (below) that it's okay for siblings to marry one another. I asked the poster to please provide more proof. And she provided a diary by George Cannon's son Abraham H. Cannon with several entries that made it difficult to find.

Do any of you know how true this was, or was it more family sealings? I thought I knew everything there was to know. Also, sorry for the meme below, it's what was posted.

I love this post Tacenda.  I love that you decided to check into it first.  

I agree with Pogi and Bluebell about how it seems.  I also wouldn't stop looking so you can see the source to see it in context because you never know. Please let us know if you are able to find it somewhere.

[Rain]

7 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

The actual book makes it clear what he's talking about. (spirits being brothers and sisters, and bodies being brothers and sisters (offspring of adamant and eve etc))

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=LkRZGQ8oO8IC&pg=PA362&lpg=PA362&dq="then+i+reckon+that+the+children+of+adam+and+eve"&source=bl&ots=31Y2ixd3rg&sig=ACfU3U0zofUXD18FvL8aypjZQkNkW2Nq9g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjxleS7ruL2AhXbR2wGHSTYBIYQ6AF6BAgREAM#v=onepage&q&f=false

In this context it kind of sounds like he is talking about both spiritual and physical sisters. Kind of justifying it is ok to marry your earthly sister because both earthly and spiritual sisters because we are all made from the same material whether spiritual or physical.  Now it would be good to read even more context.