Adam and Steve

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

But future leaders will pray about it and eventually it will happen because people will feel like it's what God wants.  The idea will make people feel warm and fuzzy. 

Do you believe e this is what happened with the removal of polygamy or the removal of the Priesthood ban?  That what has been presented as revelation wasn’t actually revelation?  If so, when was the last real revelation the Church received and why did they stop?

If not, how are we (members) supposed to tell the difference between the warm and fuzzy impressions that get assumed to be and taught as revelations and the real thing?  And what recent teaching has been a true revelation in your belief? (Trying to understand how you recognize them)

I am just curious about how you think about this issue, not debating.

Edited July 28, 2023 by Calm

[Vanguard]

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Church position changes depending on the culture of those in leadership positions.  That's just a fact of life.

No actual revelation will ever allow homosexual sealings.  But future leaders will pray about it and eventually it will happen because people will feel like it's what God wants.  The idea will make people feel warm and fuzzy.  They'll feel discomfort with the status quo and movement of society, and by golly if you feel bad about it then it's not from God, right?

Elder Holland was right: "it is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much, comfortable gods, smooth gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it, gods who pat us on the head, make us giggle, then tell us to run along and pick marigolds."

 

So in your mind there is a 3rd option - that being, the Brethren will claim revelation to grant same-sex sealings where there is no such revelation. Hmmm... 

MS - Can you answer my question? 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you believe e this is what happened with the removal of polygamy or the removal of the Priesthood ban?  That what has been presented as revelation wasn’t actually revelation?  If so, when was the last real revelation the Church received and why did they stop?

If not, how are we (members) supposed to tell the difference between the warm and fuzzy impressions that get assumed to be and taught as revelations and the real thing?  And what recent teaching has been a true revelation in your belief? (Trying to understand how you recognize them)

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

So in your mind there is a 3rd option - that being, the Brethren will claim revelation to grant same-sex sealings where there is no such revelation. Hmmm... 

MS - Can you answer my question? 

Well, just like they said the women weren't asking for the Priesthood, or agitating for it, I guess they pray just like Joseph Smith did on if he should live polygamy like in Bible times, and if they should proceed with something.

[JLHPROF]

On 7/27/2023 at 6:52 PM, Calm said:

Do you believe e this is what happened with the removal of polygamy or the removal of the Priesthood ban?  That what has been presented as revelation wasn’t actually revelation?  If so, when was the last real revelation the Church received and why did they stop?

We always go to the big issues.  The leaders claim revelation on all sorts of things.  The word Mormon for instance.  The renovations of the Manti Temple.  The 116 pages.  The November policy.  

There are lots of examples where revelation was claimed and the results were not God's will.  Sometimes he corrects them, sometimes he doesn't.

Polygamy and the Priesthood ban are interesting cases.  What changed between President McKay's "not yet" answer and President Kimball's revelation?  Did God change, the world change, the Church membership change, the leaders change?

And when was the last time a revelation was claimed that wasn't what the leadership wanted?  God used to give corrections and chastisement.

Quote

If not, how are we (members) supposed to tell the difference between the warm and fuzzy impressions that get assumed to be and taught as revelations and the real thing?  And what recent teaching has been a true revelation in your belief? (Trying to understand how you recognize them)

I am just curious about how you think about this issue, not debating.

I think there's a tiered system of clarity when claiming revelation was received.  It's called the word of the Lord for a reason.  A seer is called a seer because he actually sees.

Edited July 29, 2023 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

On 7/27/2023 at 7:15 PM, Vanguard said:

So in your mind there is a 3rd option - that being, the Brethren will claim revelation to grant same-sex sealings where there is no such revelation. Hmmm... 

Yes, that is absolutely possible given historical examples.

[provoman]

On 6/19/2023 at 5:23 PM, Rain said:

I only got a third through this and am going no further.  Does Dan make any arguments later in it? - because from my understanding he doesn't make arguments for or against any particular view of the church.  He is only telling what scriptures actually say or don't say.  

If it is anything like his tiktoks, he uses customs of the Romans to explain what the Lord told the House of Israel.  

[MrShorty]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

What changed between President McKay's "not yet" answer and President Kimball's revelation?  Did God change, the world change, the Church membership change, the leaders change?

I listened to a conversation on youtube between Stephen Jones and Scott Woodward talking about the priesthood and temple ban. Woodward made the interesting observation (or, at least it was significant in his opinion) that the first time that the Q15 unitedly approached God with the intent of reversing the ban if God approved, God approved the decision. Woodward makes this observation within his understanding of the overall history that -- echoing Paul Reeves' view -- the Restoration started with "the truth" which was an inclusive church that welcomed all to receive priesthood and temple ordinances, somehow something less than that inclusiveness got introduced to the church in the mid to late 19th century, and the '78 revelation represents a re-restoration of the original revelations given to Joseph Smith.

I think @JLHPROF is right about the challenges to recognizing revelation in the church. For a church that claims to built on the rock of revelation, it seems to me that we ought to be more concerned about these challenges.

[carbon dioxide]

On 7/27/2023 at 11:50 AM, Vanguard said:

Could you clarify what you mean by "will not tolerate it 20 years from now"? Do you mean despite what their spiritual proclivities tell them or that revelation will come to them that indeed it is time to allow sealing of homosexual couples? 

I am more worried about what the Lord will tolerate from his people than what the youth will tolerate.   The Lord wants people who follow his commandments.  Not a people who just do whatever they want based on the culture acceptance of the day.  Overall, if the church has to lose half of its members to remain more pure that would be preferred over tripling the membership in the name of accepting wickedness.   We have seen the issue tear apart the Methodists and other groups.  It would do the same to us.   I know what side I would go with. 

Edited July 30, 2023 by carbon dioxide

[The Nehor]

54 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I am more worried about what the Lord will tolerate from his people than what the youth will tolerate.   The Lord wants people who follow his commandments.  Not a people who just do whatever they want based on the culture acceptance of the day.  Overall, if the church has to lose half of its members to remain more pure that would be preferred over tripling the membership in the name of accepting wickedness.   We have seen the issue tear apart the Methodists and other groups.  It would do the same to us.   I know what side I would go with. 

I would focus on virtue instead of culture wars. I am a traditionalist.

[JustAnAustralian]

3 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

We have seen the issue tear apart the Methodists and other groups.

Well that's the thing isn't it. When you see what caused splits in Latter-day Saint Movement denominations in years gone by, you can see where things could end up

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_denominations_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement

The interesting question is where people who for instance denied-to-the-point-of-leaving a Q15 revelation permitting same-sex marital sealings would go. Would they shift to one of the fundamental denominations, or would they split off and form their own?

Edited July 30, 2023 by JustAnAustralian

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Well that's the thing isn't it. When you see what caused splits in Latter-day Saint Movement denominations in years gone by, you can see where things could end up

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_denominations_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement

The interesting question is where people who for instance denied-to-the-point-of-leaving a Q15 revelation permitting same-sex marital sealings would go. Would they shift to one of the fundamental denominations, or would they split off and form their own?

I recently found out that some members of the Community of Christ (formerly the RLDS) was looking for information on non-monogamy to try to figure out if/how their faith could be more inclusive towards them. Full circle from breaking off over polygamy to exploring polyamory. It is a weird world.

[JLHPROF]

12 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I am more worried about what the Lord will tolerate from his people than what the youth will tolerate.   The Lord wants people who follow his commandments.  Not a people who just do whatever they want based on the culture acceptance of the day.  Overall, if the church has to lose half of its members to remain more pure that would be preferred over tripling the membership in the name of accepting wickedness.   We have seen the issue tear apart the Methodists and other groups.  It would do the same to us.   I know what side I would go with. 

Nobody seems to care about this much anymore.  Everyone, instead of choosing their way or God's way, are now totally convinced that whatever is their way IS what God would want.

In our push to close the distance between man and God we've lost the idea that when there appears to be a discrepancy between God's word and our lives the issue is with us, not God.

"We think XYZ is good and acceptable, the gospel says it's wrong.  How can I fix the gospel so XYZ fits?"  It's ridiculous.

Edited July 30, 2023 by JLHPROF

[LoudmouthMormon]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I recently found out that some members of the Community of Christ (formerly the RLDS) was looking for information on non-monogamy to try to figure out if/how their faith could be more inclusive towards them. Full circle from breaking off over polygamy to exploring polyamory. It is a weird world.

Through the 3 decades I've been paying attention, polygamy has always been an awkward topic discussing with friendly IRL nonmembers.  They would jokingly ask me how many wives I had. Or look conspiratorial and whisper what they know about it, hoping not to offend, but letting me know they know "what's up".   Of course, endless waves of critics all yelling about oppressing women, treating them like property, toxic patriarchies, etc.  Sort of what you'd expect from a country 3-5 generations after a bunch of antipolygamist federal and state legislation, complete with jailed leaders and seized temples and troops marching on Utah and all that.

Then we all went into covid isolation for 2+ years, and when I came back into the world I started having live interactions with some woke progressive diversity fans.  They've got a mild interest in me being LDS, and when I mention polygamy, there's absolutely zero awkwardness or harsh judgment.   These are folks who can't for the life of them understand how redstate people could be so evil as to ban drag shows in schools.  So your kink is lots of wives?  Rock on friend - consent is the only thing that matters.

Sounds like the CoC merely wants to find new ways to appeal to new potential converts.  

Edited July 30, 2023 by LoudmouthMormon

[MiserereNobis]

On 7/27/2023 at 12:12 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

My perspective was to point out the Catholic position on birth control and abortion

While the doctrinal position remains the same, there is a huge difference between what the Church teaches and what Catholics believe and do, especially when it comes to birth control.

[MrShorty]

18 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I am more worried about what the Lord will tolerate from his people than what the youth will tolerate.   The Lord wants people who follow his commandments.  Not a people who just do whatever they want based on the culture acceptance of the day.  Overall, if the church has to lose half of its members to remain more pure that would be preferred over tripling the membership in the name of accepting wickedness.   We have seen the issue tear apart the Methodists and other groups.  It would do the same to us.   I know what side I would go with. 

I'm not trying to turn this into yet another thread about the priesthood and temple ban, but having mentioned Scott Woodward, I will also note that I am in the middle of Paul Reeves' Let's Talk About Race and the Priesthood. I know we have discussed Patrick Mason in regard to this issue as well. There seem to be more and more faithful LDS who use essentially this framework (of God tolerating sin among his people) in regards to the race based priesthood and temple ban. More and more I see LDS describing that episode in our history as "do[ing] whatever they wanted based on the culture acceptance of the day." It's no secret that race and slavery split other Christian groups in the 19th century, causing some of those splinter groups (like the Southern Baptist Convention) to issue apologies and retractions for their 19th century beliefs and practices.

I know that some people get tired of the comparison between LGBT issues and racial issues, but there sure seem to me to be a lot of parallels (except we are still in the midst of understanding the truth around LGBT issues, but we can look at the history of racial issues in hindsight).

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Nobody seems to care about this much anymore.  Everyone, instead of choosing their way or God's way, are now totally convinced that whatever is their way IS what God would want.

In our push to close the distance between man and God we've lost the idea that when there appears to be a discrepancy between God's word and our lives the issue is with us, not God.

"We think XYZ is good and acceptable, the gospel says it's wrong.  How can I fix the gospel so XYZ fits?"  It's ridiculous.

The reasoning of the Delbert Stapley letter to George Romney. That didn’t go so well.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The reasoning of the Delbert Stapley letter to George Romney. That didn’t go so well.

Or perhaps another example of a Church official believing he was led by revelation where none existed.

It cuts both ways.  Whether our leaders believe everything they do is revealed from the Lord so they assume their will matches God's will.  Or people try to make God's will match their contradictory beliefs and fit the square peg into the round hole.

It's the same coin with two sides.  We have to match the Lord's will.  Not try to make our own will fit into his plan OR always assume our will is what the Lord wants.  Lectures on Faith had it right:

"An actual knowledge to any person that the course of life which he pursues is according to the will of God, is essentially necessary to enable him to have that confidence in God, without which no person can obtain eternal life."

[MustardSeed]

On 7/27/2023 at 6:15 PM, Vanguard said:

MS - Can you answer my question? 

I am not here much the last few weeks.  Got a bit road weary. 
 

It is my opinion that in twenty years when todays youth who seem to be far more inclusive of LGB realities are running businesses and churches,  that they will raise their own kids to follow suit and will challenge current ideologies around heterosexual norms.  They will insist on different rules and expectations  than we currently hold.  Again, IMO. 
 

So much has changed already regarding LGB attitudes, just in 5 years.  More exposure changes viewpoints, and just like 30 years ago it felt like major sin for women to work outside the home, we now don’t think twice about a woman’s interest in a career. 

[Calm]

10 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Everyone, instead of choosing their way or God's way, are now totally convinced that whatever is their way IS what God would want.

I am not seeing this in everyone.  I know many who are working hard and even struggling because they are trying to align their wills with God and in some cases are troubled they aren’t doing that well.

I know for myself I can guarantee that my way is not what God wants, I am hoping I am somewhere in his vicinity or at least heading in his direction.  I don’t see how it is possible to ever be fully aligned to God’s Will as mortals, definitely as individuals, but especially in communities where compromises must be made to adjust for everyone’s weaknesses.

Nor do I want my way to be the way as that would be a recipe for disaster given my limited understanding of reality and humanity and what we need to experience to become our best selves.

Edited July 31, 2023 by Calm

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I am not here much the last few weeks.  Got a bit road weary. 
 

It is my opinion that in twenty years when todays youth who seem to be far more inclusive of LGB realities are running businesses and churches,  that they will raise their own kids to follow suit and will challenge current ideologies around heterosexual norms.  They will insist on different rules and expectations  than we currently hold.  Again, IMO. 
 

So much has changed already regarding LGB attitudes, just in 5 years.  More exposure changes viewpoints, and just like 30 years ago it felt like major sin for women to work outside the home, we now don’t think twice about a woman’s interest in a career. 

I see LDS families in my former ward and elsewhere with children that are trans/gay/bisexual/queer. So definitely going to be more and more since it's now more acceptable. All these years we've had people hide in the closet, thus the "coming out of the closet". No more of that, like in the past, so inevitably it seems, there's no way around the church's non-acceptance of it. Not sure how it's going to be able to have it be an acceptance that is across the board though, with temple ordinances. But the years where there will be younger apostles, maybe. 

[MustardSeed]

I guess I would ask if folks think that God will hold it against us if prophets are misled? 

[JLHPROF]

49 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I guess I would ask if folks think that God will hold it against us if prophets are misled? 

Depends if you believe President Grant:

"My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it."

Or President Young:

"We have heard men who hold the Priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong: but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme;and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly."

[MrShorty]

@MustardSeed An excellent question. In the video conversation I mentioned between Jones and Woodward, they repeatedly emphasized that, in their opinion, God redeems "the situation" so that those who were denied ordinances and those who were otherwise misled to believe incorrect things about race could be redeemed through Christ's atonement. I think most faithful perspectives that I encounter on the specific example of the priesthood and temple ban insist that whatever happened (whether God implemented/perpetuated or God allowed human frailty to implement/perpetuate) God through Christ covers the inequities of the situation.

At the end of the day, I don't know. There are many who say that God does not hold us culpable for following prophets into error (Elder Bensen's 14 Fundamentals talk included that idea, if memory serves). I know that, as I have contemplated the question, I also have wondered if God holds us culpable for sincerely thinking a prophet is in error and choosing not to follow them. We believe that prophets are fallible and that scripture is errant (the Jones/Woodward youtube video I mentioned started with Woodward opining that the biggest myth in "Mormonism" is the myth of prophetic infallibility), but we also believe that we, ourselves can be misled by our own thoughts and perceptions. Somewhere in this mess of fallible sources of truth, what does God expect when prophets make mistakes? Does He expect us to follow along? Does He expect us to follow what we think is right? And what should the church do in the face of this uncertainty that leads to differences of opinion? Choose a side and drive those opposed out of the church or try to thread needles so that all will stay in the church? In Reeves' book, he makes the observation that, while the question of slavery split other Christian denominations, the LDS church managed to stay together in spite of having both staunch abolitionists and enslavers/enslaved within its ranks.

It is a very good question. I don't know the answer to the question (except for some kind of universalist, "God saves everyone who is sincerely trying to do their best to choose right over wrong")

[pogi]

 

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

In our push to close the distance between man and God we've lost the idea that when there appears to be a discrepancy between God's word and our lives the issue is with us, not God.

I think it is more likely seen as a discrepancy in the fallible vehicle of God’s word when you are confident that the spirit tells you one thing but the church/prophets tell you another.

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

"We think XYZ is good and acceptable, the gospel says it's wrong.  How can I fix the gospel so XYZ fits?"  It's ridiculous.

“The gospel” is not without interpretation.  I tend to side with BrighamYoung here, we can’t just take their (both modern and scriptural prophets) word for it.

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Lectures on Faith had it right:

"An actual knowledge to any person that the course of life which he pursues is according to the will of God, is essentially necessary to enable him to have that confidence in God, without which no person can obtain eternal life."

What to do when God reveals to you that he is very happy with the course of your life when you are living contrary to certain elements of “the gospel” as taught by prophets?  For example, I no longer pay tithing to the church, I pay it to other charities.  My wife and I have prayed and fasted over this before making the decision and have prayed and fasted after…God tells us that he is happy with the course we have taken.  Either that or I don’t know, and have never known, the Spirit of the Lord. 

Edited July 31, 2023 by pogi

[Calm]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

"An actual knowledge to any person that the course of life which he pursues is according to the will of God, is essentially necessary to enable him to have that confidence in God, without which no person can obtain eternal life."

I disagree with this belief unless we are talking about it on a very macro, very general level.

I have solid faith and trust in God to get me where I need to go (I have no doubt that to trust God is the best, healthiest and happiest position for me to hold…that trusting God is the most good thing I can do for myself and others), but am very uncertain how much I am delaying his efforts on my behalf (this is not forcing me because this is my ultimate desire too even without knowing what that means) and how much I am helping because I am uncertain about what I really should be doing. I don’t know, for example, if I am making too many excuses and should be going to church more often and just enduring the physical blowback or I am making the right decisions to stay home in order to be able to fulfill other needs of myself and my family.  Since I can’t predict how I am going to respond to any stress (my fibro will sometimes hit me hard and sometimes not), it is all a guessing game these days on what to do, which action will yield the most good in my life. Just recently I had two physical therapy experiences (you know, the stuff your doctor tells you is going to help you) set off my vertigo and kick me back into bed for a couple of weeks each time, undoing the good work the previous PT sessions and exercise had accomplished.  There are so many times in my life where choosing the “right” thing to do has led to preventing me from doing more “right” things in the future. 
 

But in the long run I don’t see that as making much difference to whether or not I get eternal life. I believe as long as I am willing to trust God, he will get me there in spite of myself. He set up mortality so we can’t know, where the vast majority of us will lack that certainty, so it follows imo that he is okay with us stumbling around in the dark.