183 Semiannual General Conference Thread

[Harry Tic]

I'm a little irritated at the persistence of certain posters on this thread who have interrupted a perfectly suitable conversation about leftovers to get up on their hobbyhorses.

The only concession for now I'll make to the threadjack is that it has always struck me as curious that (1) LDS scriptures clearly allude to social relationships that we may regard as sanctioned on earth but which are non-binding for those inhabiting anything but the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. It is unclear to me how heterosexual relationships that have not been solemnized in a temple are materially different from same-gender ones, given that neither has any binding force in the hereafter (again, I mean from a theological perspective and not a sociological one); and (2) we have come to equivocate between the specific doctrinal ideal of a certain kind of social relationship and a general social norm, one that should presumably be enforced by earthly governments. I think the distinction between ideal and norm is a significant one and I think that relying upon legal frameworks to enforce a particular religious ideal (one whose value is becoming increasingly less obvious) is problematic, to say the least. That's not to say that it can't be done.

[CardiacCoug]

What part of Families are forever comes into play when our kids are the same ages as us and our parents, and we have hundreds if not thousands or new kids that have come behind our original earth kids. I think we'll be friends and all, but I don't see us getting together and playing UNO on Monday nights. Any thoughts?

Yep, if you step back and take a broad view of things, kids and parents are obviously equals: kids are dependent on parents for the first few years and many parents are dependent on kids for the last few years. So yeah I agree that this common LDS idea of the "eternal family" as parents sitting around with little kids throughout eternity doesn't make sense, since those kids also presumably grow up and move on.

Seems like viewing your kids as ultimately separate and equal entities to yourself as a parent is a psychologically healthy thing in real life, too. Kids go off and do their own thing. They often disappoint and neglect parents significantly in one way or another after a certain age. Parents who prioritize kids over spouse will find themselves totally miserable when the kids go off and forget about them and/or disappoint them. Making your relationship with your kids the fundamental priority in your life seems like a very dangerous strategy that often makes people miserable in the end.

[old_gregg]

As a sidebar to this almost interesting line, I don't think the eternal family ("families can be together forever") concept can hold up under the weight of eternity.

First when we all die we end up as adults of the same age. Second, if we live in the millenium and continue to have children, they will become the priority of the moment, and those kids will grow up and have kids as well. Thirdly, the millennium is over and now we're in the CK, where we're having more kids, (albeit spiritual ones) and those kids will be our main concern at any given time. 10,000 years pass away, and we've got 3,000 spirit children who are pushing us to get bodies, and we're busy as hell.

What part of Families are forever comes into play when our kids are the same ages as us and our parents, and we have hundreds if not thousands or new kids that have come behind our original earth kids. I think we'll be friends and all, but I don't see us getting together and playing UNO on Monday nights. Any thoughts?

i find your failure to consider the multidimensionality of eternity disappointing.

[Pelado]

i find your failure to consider the multidimensionality of eternity disappointing.

I just assumed he would address the other dimensions in a follow up post. Or maybe he already did address the other dimensions in another dimension.

[creekster]

As a sidebar to this almost interesting line, I don't think the eternal family ("families can be together forever") concept can hold up under the weight of eternity.

First when we all die we end up as adults of the same age. Second, if we live in the millenium and continue to have children, they will become the priority of the moment, and those kids will grow up and have kids as well. Thirdly, the millennium is over and now we're in the CK, where we're having more kids, (albeit spiritual ones) and those kids will be our main concern at any given time. 10,000 years pass away, and we've got 3,000 spirit children who are pushing us to get bodies, and we're busy as hell.

What part of Families are forever comes into play when our kids are the same ages as us and our parents, and we have hundreds if not thousands or new kids that have come behind our original earth kids. I think we'll be friends and all, but I don't see us getting together and playing UNO on Monday nights. Any thoughts?

I spent some time speculating about this general idea in my GD class a month or two ago. I pointed out that the notion of fmailies together forever is always illustrated with a nuclear family with young children when the reality is going to be a whole bunch of adults and no young children and where there are breaks in the sealing line they will be clipped out and replaced like bad DNA or something. Moreover, if you go for four or five generations in both directions you will have so many people involved that you wont even be able to find a table big enough for thanksgiving dinner. Accordingly, it seems to me, that this thing we talk about must be important for other reasons, reasons we dont yet understand or which have not yet been revealed. This is further proof, to me, that most fo what we think we know WRT the after life just isnt right, as our current notion of eternity invovles the imposition of earthly ideals and physical restrictions on eternal and unchanging entities, and that just doesnt work.

[Uncle Ted]

On a related note: The POF states that gender is eternal, but is there any scriptural basis for that statement? I can't think of any. Given that there is almost zero scriptural basis for doctrine of pre-existence (which had a very interesting evolution, btw), I suspect it is one of those things that has been inferred. I wonder if the POF is the first time that was explicitly stated or if there were earlier references to the idea. Would be interesting to trace it back.

So is the hermaphrodite/intersexual gender state also eternal? I saw an interesting TED about this that started me wondering about this question...

http://www.ted.com/talks/alice_drege...y_destiny.html

[Uncle Ted]

I can't read the date on that quote, but GQC was a very important figure and defender of polygamy, not to mention practitioner of polygamy post-manifesto. If the date was before the Taylor presidency, then it would make sense.

Under the name "John Taylor" it states "President of the Mormon Church".

[Uncle Ted]

On a related note: The POF states that gender is eternal, but is there any scriptural basis for that statement? I can't think of any. Given that there is almost zero scriptural basis for doctrine of pre-existence (which had a very interesting evolution, btw), I suspect it is one of those things that has been inferred. I wonder if the POF is the first time that was explicitly stated or if there were earlier references to the idea. Would be interesting to trace it back.

Back to your original question... Richard G. Scott said:

The scriptures record, “And I, God, created man … ; male and female created I them.” This was done spiritually in your premortal existence when you lived in the presence of your Father in Heaven. Your gender existed before you came to earth.

https://www.lds.org/general-conferen...ss?lang=eng#1-

The scripture he quotes is Moses 2:27 but the footnote also references Moses 3:5:

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the eground; for in fheaven gcreated I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/3.5?lang=eng#4

So the question is do spiritual things have gender.

[UVACoug]

You don't get it. I'm saying that a straight person telling a gay person "MY marriage is better than YOURS!" is arrogant. I think a gay person saying the same thing to a straight person would also be arrogant. You disagree?

You are assuming a false premise. Why would I say that my marriage (or potential marriage) is better than a gay person's marriage when I believe marriage requires a man and a woman? I have no belief about what kind of marriage is better because I believe there is only one valid form of marriage.

As for whether it is "arrogant" to hold that believe ... I don't believe that is the case at all. I think it is arrogant to presume we know more than God or his prophets.

What IS arrogant is treating gay people like crap because they don't hold the same beliefs as you, or because they don't live the way you think they should live. It is also pretty damn arrogant to claim you are morally superior to someone else because they happen to believe gay marriage is immoral.

[UVACoug]

I'm a little irritated at the persistence of certain posters on this thread who have interrupted a perfectly suitable conversation about leftovers to get up on their hobbyhorses.

I agree ... lets get back to talking about how much we hate President Hinckley.

[woot]

Which would essentially destroy the church. This is the thing Milquetoasters are unwilling to accept. (see: CardiacCoug)

Right. My point is that making statements like "Either x is true or else the church is false!" is a really bad idea. Bruce R McKonkie made a bunch of those sorts of statements, and he turned out to be objectively wrong on a lot of them. So according to BRM, and now according to you, the church is false.

Call them milquetoast all you want, but at least they're making an effort to preserve their religion. Isn't it better to incorporate reality into one's beliefs, rather than holding your own church hostage like that? Why not work to figure out how to reconcile evidence with your religion, rather than simply denying objective reality? Do you really think that's a good long-term strategy?

[CardiacCoug]

You are assuming a false premise. Why would I say that my marriage (or potential marriage) is better than a gay person's marriage when I believe marriage requires a man and a woman? I have no belief about what kind of marriage is better because I believe there is only one valid form of marriage.

As for whether it is "arrogant" to hold that believe ... I don't believe that is the case at all. I think it is arrogant to presume we know more than God or his prophets.

What IS arrogant is treating gay people like crap because they don't hold the same beliefs as you, or because they don't live the way you think they should live. It is also pretty damn arrogant to claim you are morally superior to someone else because they happen to believe gay marriage is immoral.

Sorry if you are taking this personally. I don't think I'm treating anybody like crap. I was talking to Tex mainly and these kind of discussions go way back -- I know for sure he doesn't take it personally and I don't take anything you or Tex or obviously BYU71 says on these topics personally. In my mind this discussion should be about ideas and logic -- it's definitely nothing personal.

Listen, it's fine for you to believe gay marriage and gay relationships are immoral because that's what the Prophets have said. Just don't be surprised when the Prophets start saying something very different in the future. Times change and new light and knowledge is what this Church is all about. Polygamy was never going away. Knee-to-ankle garments were never going away. Excluding blacks from the Temple and from the Priesthood was never going away. So when DHO says "gays must be celibate to stay LDS" is never going away, I'm sorry but I just wouldn't be so sure that's a permanent thing.

[woot]

This has probably already been pointed out, but I thought it was interesting that DHO included both doctrine and policy as being from god and therefore unchanging. Despite this being yet another obvious falsehood, it makes the endless discussion about doctrine vs policy moot. Regardless of whether something was doctrine or "only" policy, all the stuff the church has changed over the years was supposedly unchangeable.

It's nice that mistakes were finally admitted to, but if the church actually seeks to repent, I would expect said mistakes to be itemized and discussed in great detail, unless the church doesn't hold itself to the same standards as, say, a dry-humping teen.

[Moliere]

I spent some time speculating about this general idea in my GD class a month or two ago. I pointed out that the notion of fmailies together forever is always illustrated with a nuclear family with young children when the reality is going to be a whole bunch of adults and no young children and where there are breaks in the sealing line they will be clipped out and replaced like bad DNA or something. Moreover, if you go for four or five generations in both directions you will have so many people involved that you wont even be able to find a table big enough for thanksgiving dinner. Accordingly, it seems to me, that this thing we talk about must be important for other reasons, reasons we dont yet understand or which have not yet been revealed. This is further proof, to me, that most fo what we think we know WRT the after life just isnt right, as our current notion of eternity invovles the imposition of earthly ideals and physical restrictions on eternal and unchanging entities, and that just doesnt work.

Is it probable that the sealing doctrine has been usurped by modern day prophets to reinforce an emphasis on the nuclear family? I need to spend some time studying JS's preaching on the sealing power, but in what little I've read so far he seems to make it more about an unbroken chain of ancestors sealed all the way back to Adam and not so much about living with your kids again after this life. It seems to be more about saving yourself (and your ancestors) through that chain and not so much wanting to hang out while making worlds without end.

As much as I love the idea of an eternal family, I really just love the idea of being married to MJ for eternity.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Is it probable that the sealing doctrine has been usurped by modern day prophets to reinforce an emphasis on the nuclear family? I need to spend some time studying JS's preaching on the sealing power, but in what little I've read so far he seems to make it more about an unbroken chain of ancestors sealed all the way back to Adam and not so much about living with your kids again after this life. It seems to be more about saving yourself (and your ancestors) through that chain and not so much wanting to hang out while making worlds without end.

As much as I love the idea of an eternal family, I really just love the idea of being married to MJ for eternity.

The fact is, we don't have a clue what it really means to be sealed to someone beyond some vague generalities. Something you take on faith.