How to reconcile mixed messages from The Church

[ttribe]

FYI - Jacob (aka "Thoughtful-Saint") is amongst the most hateful posters in the Twitter-Mo universe. He sits DezNat-adjacent and has a long history of demeaning and hurtful posts regarding members of the LBGTQ+ community as it relates to LDS matters.

[Duncan]

16 minutes ago, ttribe said:

FYI - Jacob (aka "Thoughtful-Saint") is amongst the most hateful posters in the Twitter-Mo universe. He sits DezNat-adjacent and has a long history of demeaning and hurtful posts regarding members of the LBGTQ+ community as it relates to LDS matters.

as is Greg Matsen, Dennis Horne-he litters fairlds with his nonsense comments but to his credit he doesn't have a youtube channel like Greg

[longview]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

7 hours ago, longview said:

It would be prudent for the "one giant university" to regularly provide testing to help both the professor and the students know where they are falling off the mark or maintaining the necessary progression.

If the professor is omniscient the professor shouldn’t need tests to guide his appraisal.

Even if the professor knows the outcome, he is gracious enough to allow the student to have the experience and learn how to adjust his short term and long term goals.

[Daniel2]

On 2/1/2024 at 7:30 PM, mfbukowski said:

Ok I am going to say it.

EVERY doctrine and theological position since the very beginning has been based on one form or another is "natural law"

Spirit is matter.  We technically are materialists. --> Union of opposites, spirit and matter= opposites made one

God used existing materials and "natural laws" of physics to "organize" ( not create ex nihilo) the universe

Jesus it has been said, was conceived the same way all humans are.  "Virgin birth", according to many, beginning with Brigham, seems to be LITERALLY not possible on this paradigm.

The union of opposites as a method of creation, opposition in all things, and other similar paradigms are also represented again and again in Lds theology.

You can't escape it!

Gay marriage to most imo, represents a theological step in the opposite direction.

I am not taking a position for or against, but I would like to see a way of constructing a paradigm that uses these principles to justify gay marriage.

Please.

Have never seen anything that actually "fits" our theology.

Yes, love everyone, but this is about the logical structure of a paradigm 

Somebody's got to raise the issue in a way that modifies existing paradigms while achieving what is believed,nor they might be unreconcilable

My apologies for the delay; as mentioned, I've been travelling and am still recuperating 30+ hours of international travel--I'll try and answer these as I can, while catching up on work and home obligations.

As I see it, mfbukowski, from much of what you wrote in the post above and others in this thread reflect what you refer to as LDS "paradigms", or common beliefs, from what I suggest are actually vestigial; remnants from former church leaders' teachings that are no longer in step with today's LDS teachings and official beliefs, some of which contradict previous prophetic pronouncements.

For example, you state that,

Quote

 

Jesus it has been said, was conceived the same way all humans are.  "Virgin birth", according to many, beginning with Brigham, seems to be LITERALLY not possible on this paradigm.

 

Yes, for decades, several past leaders may have "said" as much, including 'Mormon apostle Bruce McConkie, in perhaps the most explicit denial of the virgin birth, wrote, “Christ was begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 547).'

However, any idea or suggestion that God the Father must have had physical relations with Mary for Jesus to be considered the only begotten of the Father do not reflect modern LDS doctrine.  In FAIR's articles titled The Conception of Jesus Christ and Do Latter-day Saints believe that Mary was still a virgin when Jesus was born?, we read the following: 

Quote

It is claimed that Latter-day Saints believe Jesus was conceived through sexual intercourse between God the Father and Mary, and that Mary therefore was not a virgin when Jesus was born... Often used as evidence are a handful statements from early LDS leaders, such as Brigham Young, that directly or indirectly support this idea. However, such statements do not represent the official doctrine of the Church. The key, official doctrine of the Church is that Jesus is literally the son of God (i.e., this is not a symbolic or figurative expression), and Mary was a virgin before and after Christ's conception. 

What the Church has not taken a position on is how the conception took place, despite speculations by various early Church leaders: The canonized scriptures are silent on how the conception took place—even Nephi's detailed vision of then-future Messiah is veiled during the part where Mary conceives (1 Nephi 11:19).

They go so far as to explicitly call out the fact that "Jesus shared God's genetic inheritance without necessarily requiring a sexual act to combine that inheritance with Mary's mortal contribution," stating:

Quote

But are these types of statements official Church doctrine, required for all believing Latter-day Saints to accept? No—they were never submitted to the Church for ratification or canonization. (See General authorities' statements as scripture.)

Critics have noted that this statement, and others like it, can be read to indicate there was sexual intercourse involved in the conception of Jesus. Regardless of this speculation--which goes beyond the textual data--Brigham Young's view may be seen by some contemporary Latter-day Saints as correct in that Jesus was literally physically the Son of God, just as much as any children are "of our fathers." Modern science has discovered alternative methods of conceiving children--e.g., in vitro "test tube" babies--that don't involve sexual intercourse. Thus, though processes such as artificial insemination were unknown to Brigham and thus likely not referenced by his statements, it does not necessarily follow from a modern perspective that the conception had to come about as the result of a literal sexual union. It is certainly not outside of God's power to conceive Christ by other means, while remaining his literal father. (Put another way, Jesus shared God's genetic inheritance, if you will, without necessarily requiring a sexual act to combine that inheritance with Mary's mortal contribution).

Ezra Taft Benson taught:

Quote

He was the Only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father in the flesh—the only child whose mortal body was begotten by our Heavenly Father. His mortal mother, Mary, was called a virgin, both before and after she gave birth. (See 1 Nephi 11:20.) [3]

Benson's emphasis is on both the literalness of Jesus' divine birth, and the fact that Mary's virginal status persisted even immediately after conceiving and bearing Jesus.

The article goes on to suggest that early Mormon leaders weren't commenting on the need for "a sexual act to combine that God's genetic inheritance with Mary's mortal contribution" for Jesus to "share God's genetic inheritance" by giving context that they were actually intending to counteract other false evangelical teachings of the time, such that God was a non-physical, wholly corporate spirit.

The article concludes with the following:

Quote

 

Harold B. Lee was clear that the method of Jesus' conception had not been revealed, and discouraged speculation on the matter

Harold B. Lee said,

We are very much concerned that some of our Church teachers seem to be obsessed of the idea of teaching doctrine which cannot be substantiated and making comments beyond what the Lord has actually said.

You asked about the birth of the Savior. Never have I talked about sexual intercourse between Deity and the mother of the Savior. If teachers were wise in speaking of this matter about which the Lord has said but very little, they would rest their discussion on this subject with merely the words which are recorded on this subject in Luke 1:34-35: "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

Remember that the being who was brought about by [Mary's] conception was a divine personage. We need not question His method to accomplish His purposes. Perhaps we would do well to remember the words of Isaiah 55:8-9: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

Let the Lord rest His case with this declaration and wait until He sees fit to tell us more."

 

The first article concludes by saying the following:

Quote

 

The Church does not take an official position on this issue
          Main articles: Fallibility of prophets and Does LDS doctrine change?

This is one of many issues about which the Church has no official position. As President J. Reuben Clark taught under assignment from the First Presidency:

Quote

Here we must have in mind—must know—that only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church....
When any man, except the President of the Church, undertakes to proclaim one unsettled doctrine, as among two or more doctrines in dispute, as the settled doctrine of the Church, we may know that he is not "moved upon by the Holy Ghost," unless he is acting under the direction and by the authority of the President.
Of these things we may have a confident assurance without chance for doubt or quibbling.[7]

Harold B. Lee was emphatic that only one person can speak for the Church:

Quote

All over the Church you're being asked this: "What does the Church think about this or that?" Have you ever heard anybody ask that question? "What does the Church think about the civil rights legislation?" "What do they think about the war?" "What do they think about drinking Coca-Cola or Sanka coffee?" Did you ever hear that? "What do they think about the Democratic Party or ticket or the Republican ticket?" Did you ever hear that? "How should we vote in this forthcoming election?" Now, with most all of those questions, if you answer them, you're going to be in trouble. Most all of them. Now, it's the smart man that will say, "There's only one man in this church that speaks for the Church, and I'm not that one man."

I think nothing could get you into deep water quicker than to answer people on these things, when they say, "What does the Church think?" and you want to be smart, so you try to answer what the Church's policy is. Well, you're not the one to make the policies for the Church. You just remember what the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians. He said, "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2). Well now, as teachers of our youth, you're not supposed to know anything except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. On that subject you're expected to be an expert. You're expected to know your subject. You're expected to have a testimony. And in that you'll have great strength. If the President of the Church has not declared the position of the Church, then you shouldn't go shopping for the answer.[8]

This was recently reiterated by the First Presidency (who now approves all statements published on the Church's official website):

Quote

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency...and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles...counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.[9]

In response to a letter "received at the office of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" in 1912, Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency wrote:

Quote

Question 14: Do you believe that the President of the Church, when speaking to the Church in his official capacity is infallible?
Answer: We do not believe in the infallibility of man. When God reveals anything it is truth, and truth is infallible. No President of the Church has claimed infallibility.[10]

 

So, for my first counterpoint to what you asserted above: 

• No where in LDS Scripture, Cannon, or Official Church doctrine does it explain the means by which spirit children are created.
• In Official Church teachings, the only instance I'm aware of that actually DOES discuss physical procreation and the process by which God, as an exalted, divine being, shared his genetic inheritance indicates that not only is it entirely possible without the employment of a sexual act, but the Church actually backed away from such teachings and disavowed the authority of them as official doctrine.

More to come as I have time.

Edited February 6 by Daniel2

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Even if the professor knows the outcome, he is gracious enough to allow the student to have the experience and learn how to adjust his short term and long term goals.

I just can’t get a clear answer on what the grading curve is.

[manol]

37 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I just can’t get a clear answer on what the grading curve is.

Maybe the professor loves every single one of his students, and has infinite patience, and sees far more in each of them than they see in themselves.  Maybe all things really do work together for their good.  Maybe the whole reward/punishment, judgment/condemnation paradigm isn't the highest level of truth on the subject.  Maybe the "final judgment" is when a person finally forgives everyone of everything, including himself or herself, without reservation, and finally accepts their own innocence.

[MustardSeed]

2 minutes ago, manol said:

Maybe the professor loves every single one of his students, and has infinite patience, and sees far more in each of them than they see in themselves.  Maybe all things really do work together for their good.  Maybe the whole reward/punishment, judgment/condemnation paradigm isn't the highest level of truth on the subject.  Maybe the "final judgment" is when a person finally forgives everyone of everything, including himself or herself, without reservation, and finally accepts their own innocence.

Wouldn’t that be amazing! 
 

[manol]

10 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Wouldn’t that be amazing! 
 

It is the privilege of the forgiven to forgive.  Imo it's an under-utilized privilege.  It belongs to each of us. 

Edited February 6 by manol

[california boy]

On 2/4/2024 at 10:14 AM, CV75 said:

This kind of post regresses the conversation back several pages or more. Of course some things are put forth by God and others not. This exchange is about same-sex marriage, not the priesthood ban.

Are your claims about what you assume God wants, or what you know God wants?

Why do you still believe some things the Church claimed or claims, even as they change?

Because it shows the folly in assumptions made by fallible leaders.  Something that should be taken into account on current policy that forbids the very thing that is so important to all the rest of Gods. Children.  Marriage isn’t like giving up coffee or not having a tattoo.  It is the very reason for our existence.  Marriage has been a part of every single civilization that has ever formed.  Literally the foundation of human existence.    To prohibit marriage goes against the very thing that makes us human.  It isn’t something that should be decided on by prejudices and assumptions.  

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, manol said:

It is the privilege of the forgiven to forgive.  Imo it's an under-utilized privilege.  It belongs to each of us. 

In the end we will all be sinless.  To me this means we cannot even want to sin because Christ taught he judges thoughts as well.  If we do not sin and do not desire to sin, why wouldn’t we all be forgiven?  Isn’t that what repentance is?
 

And since pain held on when we can forgive is a burden, it seems to me at least everyone in the Celestial Kingdom will also forgive all others…and likely eventually the other two kingdoms as well since we will be aware of the waste of energy it is to hold on to pain when there is no need for it for self protection or a desire for justice.

Edited February 6 by Calm

[manol]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

In the end we will all be sinless.  To me this means we cannot even want to sin because Christ taught he judges thoughts as well.  If we do not sin and do not desire to sin, why wouldn’t we all be forgiven?  Isn’t that what repentance is?
 

And since pain held on when we can forgive is a burden, it seems to me at least everyone in the Celestial Kingdom will also forgive all others…and likely eventually the other two kingdoms as well since we will be aware of the waste of energy it is to hold on to pain when there is no need for it for self protection or a desire for justice.

Yes.  And imo we need not wait until "the end" to be in a state of forgiveness.  Imo "on earth as it is in heaven" implies that at least some aspects of heaven can be aligned to and experienced right here and right now, and I think this is one of them.   

Edited February 6 by manol

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, manol said:

Maybe the professor loves every single one of his students, and has infinite patience, and sees far more in each of them than they see in themselves.  Maybe all things really do work together for their good.  Maybe the whole reward/punishment, judgment/condemnation paradigm isn't the highest level of truth on the subject.  Maybe the "final judgment" is when a person finally forgives everyone of everything, including himself or herself, without reservation, and finally accepts their own innocence.

The God really screwed up by not making that a bigger theme in the holy books He gave us.

[manol]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The God really screwed up by not making that a bigger theme in the holy books He gave us.

I get the impression that those books have long since taken you as far as they can, unless you adopt a "cafeteria" approach and pick and choose only that which actually tastes good to your soul.  

An alternative is to be open to the possibility of "all that God does now reveal" not coming exclusively through the approved religious channels you might have expected. 

 

Edited February 6 by manol

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

My apologies for the delay; as mentioned, I've been travelling and am still recuperating 30+ hours of international travel--I'll try and answer these as I can, while catching up on work and home obligations.

As I see it, mfbukowski, from much of what you wrote in the post above and others in this thread reflect what you refer to as LDS "paradigms", or common beliefs, from what I suggest are actually vestigial; remnants from former church leaders' teachings that are no longer in step with today's LDS teachings and official beliefs, some of which contradict previous prophetic pronouncements.

For example, you state that,

Yes, for decades, several past leaders may have "said" as much, including 'Mormon apostle Bruce McConkie, in perhaps the most explicit denial of the virgin birth, wrote, “Christ was begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 547).'

However, any idea or suggestion that God the Father must have had physical relations with Mary for Jesus to be considered the only begotten of the Father do not reflect modern LDS doctrine.  In FAIR's articles titled The Conception of Jesus Christ and Do Latter-day Saints believe that Mary was still a virgin when Jesus was born?, we read the following: 

They go so far as to explicitly call out the fact that "Jesus shared God's genetic inheritance without necessarily requiring a sexual act to combine that inheritance with Mary's mortal contribution," stating:

The article goes on to suggest that early Mormon leaders weren't commenting on the need for "a sexual act to combine that God's genetic inheritance with Mary's mortal contribution" for Jesus to "share God's genetic inheritance" by giving context that they were actually intending to counteract other false evangelical teachings of the time, such that God was a non-physical, wholly corporate spirit.

The article concludes with the following:

The first article concludes by saying the following:

So, for my first counterpoint to what you asserted above: 

• No where in LDS Scripture, Cannon, or Official Church doctrine does it explain the means by which spirit children are created.
• In Official Church teachings, the only instance I'm aware of that actually DOES discuss physical procreation and the process by which God, as an exalted, divine being, shared his genetic inheritance indicates that not only is it entirely possible without the employment of a sexual act, but the Church actually backed away from such teachings and disavowed the authority of them as official doctrine.

More to come as I have time.

Good paradigms. I am not sure who wrote them.

The point is that they WERE written by someone who SEES THE PROBLEM, and put out an idea that works.

These paradigms must be accepted-- by the leadership.  A Conference talk would be nice.

FAIR is a great organization, but essentially the authors are folks like us.  It's essentially a wiki blog for apologists.

But the argument is not about what the church teaches; it's about a way they COULD teach it, but haven't.

But good points!

Gotta think about it.

The aspect against it though is natural law and the assertion that GOD is a glorified human, who does not do "miracles" violating natural law, but operates within natural means- and what APPEARS to us to be a miracle is simply undiscovered technology- tv for example, if seen  by the ancients, a box speaking and showing images.

I'm not against it; I just don't see how it would work in actual church doctrine.

Leadership would have to be motivated to accept these views.

There lies a problem 

 

 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

natural law and the assertion that GOD is a glorified human, who does not do "miracles" violating natural law

Is natural law a moral paradigm or a physical one (as in dealing with biology, physics, etc)?

If moral, then why would miracles violate it?

If physical, then why wouldn’t we use science to examine it?

Edited February 6 by Calm

[longview]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I just can’t get a clear answer on what the grading curve is.

The curve shows which segment of the class have been spending more time bonging at the frat house as opposed to those who hit the books and huddle with dedicated fellow classmates.

[The Nehor]

43 minutes ago, longview said:

The curve shows which segment of the class have been spending more time bonging at the frat house as opposed to those who hit the books and huddle with dedicated fellow classmates.

I am neither of those.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

Because it shows the folly in assumptions made by fallible leaders.  Something that should be taken into account on current policy that forbids the very thing that is so important to all the rest of Gods. Children.  Marriage isn’t like giving up coffee or not having a tattoo.  It is the very reason for our existence.  Marriage has been a part of every single civilization that has ever formed.  Literally the foundation of human existence.    To prohibit marriage goes against the very thing that makes us human.  It isn’t something that should be decided on by prejudices and assumptions.  

I would say that marriage is the  vehicle by which we come into any of the estates along the way.

The reason for our existence? That is a  very big question! "Agency" is my simple answer, and "To attain a fullness of agency" is my more developed answer.

Fundamentally, bias is a consequence of agency, as are belief and conviction.

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, CV75 said:

e reason for our existence? That is a  very big question! "Agency" is my simple answer, and "To attain a fullness of agency" is my more developed answer

Man is that he might have joy. 

Also the glory of God is intelligence, which means if we become one with him, it will be ours as well.  More intelligence equates to more joy imo as we are able to comprehend the aspects of joy in our experience more completely with greater intelligence as well as expand our opportunities for it.

Seems to me agency is useful because it develops intelligence and joy, but I would place it as a support of intelligence and joy and not as the ultimate purpose 

Edited February 6 by Calm

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Man is that he might have joy. 

Also the glory of God is intelligence, which means if we become one with him, it will be ours as well.  More intelligence equates to more joy imo as we are able to comprehend the aspects of joy in our experience more completely with greater intelligence as well as expand our opportunities for it.

Seems to me agency is useful because it develops intelligence and joy, but I would place it as a support of intelligence and joy and not as the ultimate purpose 

Good point! The atonement of Christ supports agency which supports joy. Without agency there is also no existence, so agency seems to be the link between Christ's work and our existence and joy. A fulness of His atonement renders a fulness of joy via a fulness of agency or existence.

The "fulness", interestingly to me, is presented and offered from His perspective (and dare I say it, bias!), so many are happy with only the portion they are willing to receive according to their personal perspective and bias. Since bias is a common attribute for everyone, even God, I think it would be well to capture and adopt His paradigm if haply we might seek and find it.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Is natural law a moral paradigm or a physical one (as in dealing with biology, physics, etc)?

If moral, then why would miracles violate it?

If physical, then why wouldn’t we use science to examine it?

I think it means that God does not do miracles that violate laws in the sphere in which they are performed. An example of a moral miracle is the principle of repentance and spiritual rebirth. An example of a physical miracle is resurrection. God performs both kinds by virtue of Jesus' atonement.

Alma 32 offers a type of science that examines both kinds of miracles, and the experience of discovery, adoption and sharing of conclusions takes place in and with our physical bodies. It's use of a physical metaphor (seed, work, tree, etc.) shows that it works in a physical and even theoretical realm.

So, the study of Jesus' virgin birth would allow for identifying the physical and spiritual elements of the parties involved according to the accounts provided. Interviewing the parties themselves becomes a practical matter, and a matter of priority.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

I would say that marriage is the  vehicle by which we come into any of the estates along the way.

The reason for our existence? That is a  very big question! "Agency" is my simple answer, and "To attain a fullness of agency" is my more developed answer.

Fundamentally, bias is a consequence of agency, as are belief and conviction.

So tell me then, how important do you think marriage is?  Is it just some minor thing that people tend to do in this life?  Not all that significant?  Your marriage isn't really a central part of your life?  

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

So tell me then, how important do you think marriage is?  Is it just some minor thing that people tend to do in this life?  Not all that significant?  Your marriage isn't really a central part of your life?  

It depends, since everything has a context in relation to everything else. It is more central than some things and less central than others. Christ is the most central to me, ideally speaking, and when push comes to shove. I think the way He and marriage are presented in our temple covenants reflects God's will for everyone.

[california boy]

9 hours ago, CV75 said:

It depends, since everything has a context in relation to everything else. It is more central than some things and less central than others. Christ is the most central to me, ideally speaking, and when push comes to shove. I think the way He and marriage are presented in our temple covenants reflects God's will for everyone.

Let's just talk about marriage in general. So tell me then, how important do you think marriage is in general?  Is it just some minor thing that people tend to do in this life?  Not all that significant?  Your marriage isn't really a central part of your life?  

[CV75]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

Let's just talk about marriage in general. So tell me then, how important do you think marriage is in general?  Is it just some minor thing that people tend to do in this life?  Not all that significant?  Your marriage isn't really a central part of your life?  

But we've been talking about the covenant of marriage in the Church, not marriage in general. I'd rather continue to drill down and particularize these points of discussion than generalize them.