Your topic More pictures ” The Kitty Cooler was interesting when I found it on Tuesday searching for weigh watchers…

This must have happened AFTER she married Henry or she would not have turned down Joseph’s proposals.

Some time after she was married Joseph explains through her brother (someone she trusts) why he introduced plural marriage. Why didn’t he tell her that in the first place, before she got married? If God insisted that Joseph and not Henry marry Zina, why didn’t he send an angel to her, or give her some kind of spiritual prompting or confirmation to marry Joseph, BEFORE she married Henry? It is not fair to Henry. Why does he not deserve to be married for eternity to his first wife, the mother of his children?

The purpose of the law of Levirate is to ensure the deceased brother has posterity if he didn’t have any before he died. So, was Brigham ensuring posterity for Joseph or himself by marrying Zina? If polyandry was acceptable, why get divorced from Henry? Their marriage must not have been considered a legitimate marriage.

Some time after her divorce and separation from her husband who was sent on a mission, she writes Brigham Young expressing her love for him. How can she love him if she had no intimate relationship with him before? My guess is that she loved him when she was sealed to him.

Allen Wyatt has done an excellent job of presenting an overview of this complex situation. I really can’t add anything to his summation. And again, everyone will draw their own conclusions. On this issue I will have to turn judgment over to the Lord and wait for the time when it can be explained to me by Henry and Zina and Joseph and Brigham.

This is changing the subject:

Have you read this? http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2006_Zina_and_Her_Men.html

I think this is very sad and it made me cry when I read Henry’s letter to his wife while he was on his mission. It is obvious to me Zina was seduced (not stolen) by men in authority, power, and prestige.

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

So, God had to have faith to create the worlds.

James 2:

18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

I believe the yeast will raise the bread, so I act upon that belief by putting yeast into the bread dough (works). This is faith. After I see the bread has risen I have knowledge.

Faith is confidence/expectation based on true laws.

The vast majority of those who are regularly active in the LDS Church believe in the Universal Flood. The Ensign article by Dr. Parry that we have been discussing would probably be fully accepted by 99 % of those who regularly read the Ensign. However, one does not have to believe in the Universal Flood in order to hold a Temple Recommend. We are all individuals and come from individual backgrounds and experiences and we all judge things with a slightly different perspective.

I think that among the LDS people there are fewer that question things in the Book of Mormon than they do in the Bible. I think there is generally more confidence that the Book of Mormon was given recently by direct revelation, through one prophet, and there is less likely to be errors. Joseph Smith said that “it was the most correct book on earth.” Notice that he did not say it was inerrant. Even Moroni, who sealed and hid the plates wrote, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ” (translated title page).

Theodore

“Even if I have made bread a thousand times before, I am still exercising faith every time I make bread.”

You’re using “faith” as a synonym for “confidence,” or “expectation.” Are they really the same thing?

When you follow a proven bread-making process, you’re applying your reason, not faith. You’ve discovered that following that process has a high probability (100%, so far!) of yielding a certain result. Do you “know” it will continue to work that way? Well, technically, no; there’s always the remote possibility that the laws of physics and chemistry will suddenly change. But since we have yet to observe an occasion of that possibility, we can reasonably conclude the odds of it are quite remote indeed, and so we can reasonably expect breadmaking to keep working the same way as before.

I have never had much faith in scientists measuring how old things are, but the reason I don’t believe in a global flood is because civilizations that existed before the flood still existed after the flood (like the Sumerians). That is why I think it was a huge flood like the Persian Gulf and the Black Sea flooding over, but not covering the entire earth.

It is interesting that faithful LDS would say they don’t believe in the flood. It is probably because they don’t believe in the Bible that much, and that is acceptable in the Church. Does anyone express as much scepticism about stories in the Book of Mormon?

So, are you saying you make a decision based on reason, but if it conflicts with what you believe, you change your decision? I understand your decisions have to be in harmony with your values.

That’s not faith — that’s reason. You’ve observed a process, seen that it works, and therefore have a reason to have confidence that it will work when you repeat the process.

Faith is having hope for things that (unlike your example) are “not seen.”

When I use the phrase “reason informed by faith,” I mean that I make decisions based on reason, going all the way back to my basic choice, by faith, to assume an eternal perspective to my existence.

If I watch my mother make bread and see that when she uses yeast, following the directions, to make it rise, then I can have faith that when I use yeast to make bread, and follow the directions, I will get the same results. But, if I don’t follow the directions, and use water that is too hot, or the yeast is too old, or I don’t feed the yeast, it doesn’t matter how much I believe, the yeast won’t raise the bread.

Alma 32:
21 … therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.

At first impression, I’d agree that just how much of the earth got wet in Noah’s time is a theological footnote at best.

But there is a larger theological issue behind the debate. That issue has to do with the proper role of faith.

One school of thought holds that faith is properly applied only to those First Principles as to which reason, by its very nature, is incompetent. For example, if you posit the existence of things (such as God) that are ordinarily beyond the reach of the natural senses, unaided reason by definition can’t supply the answer.

Things like the existence of God, his nature, and the supernatural nature of revelation are things which I believe can only be known by a decision to exercise faith. Observation and reason can never supply a definitive answer as to these “things not seen,” so if we want to arrive at an answer, it has to be by faith or not at all.

Another school of thought holds that it is legitimate to arrive at decisions by faith, not only when reason is inherently incompetent, but also as to things which are ordinarily subject to rational evaluation. This category includes matters of astronomy, geology, biology, history, and other disciplines, which we ordinarily use secular reason to evaluate. (We didn’t use faith to send a rocket to the moon; we don’t use faith to measure whether a house built on a California hillside will fall down; we don’t use faith to determine whether to take out somebody’s appendix.) It is only in those cases where a religious tradition, for whatever reason, has touched on matters that are ordinarily measured by reason, where some people propose to resort to “faith” for an answer, instead of using their ordinary rational tools. This can cause conflicts between the secular and spiritual realms, because scripture and science don’t always agree. It also causes conflicts between competing religious groups, because you can have “faith” in just about anything, which leads to sectarian conflicts between groups of people who are equally convinced, by faith, in the rightness of their exclusive doctrines.

Historically, religion has a very poor track record when it goes up against science. Moreover, societies that make faith their basic model for understanding the physical universe tend not to progress in knowledge as well as societies that value rational inquiry.

On the other hand, societies that dismiss faith altogether also often tend to stagnate.

I believe the best society is one that values *reason informed by faith.* Exercise faith to choose an answer to the fundamental questions, and then reason out the implications of your basic confessions of faith, and any other matters in which your reason can operate. The “two wings” of faith and reason are complementary.

What interests me about the debate over whether the Flood was global or limited, is that the side that says we must believe it was global, reveals that it holds up faith as superior to reason. Though reason is fallible, and so articles of faith shouldn’t necessarily be instantly discarded when something proposed by reason appears to conflict with them, some things — like the evidence from geology that there was no global Flood — are so firmly established, that you can’t really reject it without putting out the light of reason more or less altogether. And as Locke pointed out, you can’t do that without diminishing revelation, also — because it’s partly by reason that you recognize a revelation as authentically such. (We have to be taught, by rational argument, to recognize the Spirit for what it is.) Not only that, but when reason becomes too diminished in a society, you get something like Islamic civilization — a stagnant parasite on reason-honoring societies. I’ll pass.

So the debate over the Flood isn’t just a tempest in a teapot over a theological footnote. It’s a proxy for a larger debate over the nature of faith, and its relationship with other means of knowledge.

So I guess I don’t really care.

Nor do I care if the scriptures are 100% accurate in everything.

That’s possible, particularly if you make historical or scientific matters that are susceptible of being considered by reason into matters of faith.

On the other hand, I believe that if faith is reserved, as I believe is proper, for those matters which reason is inherently incapable of supplying a conclusive answer — such as the existence and nature of God, and the reality and supernatural nature of revelation — then there will never be an occasion for science to interfere with faith.

Just for the record I am not “on the FAIR crew.” I’m just hangin out here like you are.

onika said.

If there wasn’t a world-wide flood, the people thought there was, and that’s why they wrote it. so maybe the scriptures aren’t about what really happened, but about what they thought happened. Theodore, I don’t want to tell you anymore if this is going to make you depressed.

It made me smile to think that you were concerned about me! I learned how not to get depressed many years ago.

For those who do not believe that the scriptures are primarily the word of God that is the obvious explanation. However, for Latter-day Saints who do believe the scriptures to be the word of God that explanation doesn’t work. We read in Moses that Genesis was dictated to Moses by God, so he didn’t get the flood story from some other ancient writing. Many other prophets through the ages, including Jesus Christ have confirmed a universal flood.

This is a typical case where the current understanding of science does not agree with the standard understanding of the scriptures. It is not reasonable that a universal flood could cover Mount Everest at 29,000 feet, but the scriptures say that the mountains were covered (Genesis 7:20). Modern revelation resolves this by informing us that prior to the earth being divided in the days of Peleg that there were no high mountains (D&C 49:23; 133:22-24).

This is in conflict with current geological theory that claims all geological process move very slowly, always have and always will. The scriptures again claim otherwise in that the Lord has power to raise up mountains or to lay them low at his command (we may witness this power in operation before too long).

The problem for a Latter-day Saint believing in the Limited Flood Theory is that it generates doubt in the scriptures and in the prophets, including Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ. This doubt challenges faith and leads to further doubts in God himself.

As I said prior, everyone can choose for himself whether to believe the current interpretation of geologists, or to believe the word of God. But for me and my house…

Theodore

p.s. I’m away from my computer for a couple of days so have fun without me around to spoil it.

I’m curious, though, about what others on the FAIR crew think about this. Are they also dedicated to defending the notion of a literal, worldwide flood?

Sometimes an advanced defense — staking out the battle lines as far forward as possible — makes sense. Other times, you wind up like Sickles at Gettysburg.

we have other potential sources of authority than inerrant ancient scripture.

If ancient scripture has to be in error in order for there not to have been a universal flood the let us look at other potential sources of authority in modern scripture:

Moses 2:1
1 AND it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth; WRITE THE WORDS WHICH I SPEAK. I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth…etc, etc. (emphasis added)

It is clear from the above that God dictated Genesis to Moses. Moses did not get it from some ancient localized source.

Moses 7:32-45
32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, …
34 And the fire of mine indignation is kindled against them; and in my hot displeasure will I send in the floods upon them, for my fierce anger is kindled against them…
38 But behold, these which thine eyes are upon shall perish in the floods; and behold, I will shut them up; a prison have I prepared for them…
41 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Enoch, and told Enoch all the doings of the children of men; wherefore Enoch knew, and looked upon their wickedness, and their misery, and wept and stretched forth his arms, and his heart swelled wide as eternity; and his bowels yearned; and all eternity shook.
42 And Enoch also saw Noah, and his family; that the posterity of all the sons of Noah should be saved with a temporal salvation;
43 Wherefore Enoch saw that Noah built an ark; and that the Lord smiled upon it, and held it in his own hand; but upon the residue of the wicked the floods came and swallowed them up…
45 And it came to pass that Enoch looked; and FROM NOAH, he beheld all the families of the earth (emphasis added).

All of the families of the earth are descended from Noah because all of the rest were drowned in the flood.

3 Nephi 22:9
9 For this, the waters of Noah unto me, for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee.

Ether 13:2
2 For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands…

JST Gen 8:22
22 And behold, I, even I will bring in a flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; every thing that liveth on the earth shall die.

JST Gen 8:42-45
42 And all flesh died that moved upon the face of the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beasts, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man.
43 All in whose nostrils the Lord had breathed the breath of life, of all that were on the dry land, died.
44 And every living substance was destroyed, which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air; and they were destroyed from the earth;
45 And Noah only remained, and they that were with him in the ark.

JST Mark 13:47-49
47 But of that day and hour no one knoweth; no, not the angels of God in heaven, but my Father only.
48 But as it was in the days of Noah, so it shall be also at the coming of the Son of man; for it shall be with them as it was in the days which were before the flood.
49 Until the day the Noah entered into the ark, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, and knew not until the flood came and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

D&C 138:8-9
8 “By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
9 “Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” (1 Peter 3:18-20.)

The universal flood is confirmed throughout the Holy scriptures.

Theodore

Like the old math cartoon says, I think you need to show a bit more of your work between points 1 and 2.

I leave defending scriptural inerrancy to the Protestant fundamentalists, who truly are cooked without it. We haven’t necessarily painted ourselves into quite the same corner; we have other potential sources of authority than inerrant ancient scripture.

“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.””

As between Elder Benson and Elder Charles Penrose, who expressly condemned this kind of reasoning, I follow Elder Penrose.

There could still be a God even if the scriptures were not true. Many of our Founding Fathers believed in a Deist God.

Outside the sphere of this guarantee, however, I believe there may be areas of knowledge where the Brethren may not be more likely to know the will of the Lord — that is, the Lord’s truth — than other people. For instance, a few years ago, the Ensign published an article endorsing the literal Genesis account of a global flood. On this point, I think the evidence is overwhelming that the geologists have a better understanding of the mind of the Lord on this issue than whoever wrote and approved that article.

I disagree. I think the article you are referring to was “The Flood and the Tower of Babel,” Ensign, Jan 1998, 35, written by Dr. Donald W. Parry, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Brigham Young University. He is heavily involved with the translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This does not make him an expert in geology but he has studied geological theory and has read much of the geological evidence against a universal flood.

As Dr. Parry explains, it is primarily the theory of Uniformitarianism (geological processes have always moved very slowly and always will move very slowly) that has been the basis that has led to the conclusion that a universal flood was impossible. As Dr. Parry points out, the theory of Uniformitarianism is a useful theory but it is not a proven fact. The interpretation of geological evidence has all been done using this theory as the base.

The scriptures, however, make it clear that God has control over the elements of the earth and moves them at His will. If one does not believe the scriptures are the true word of God then of course one will not believe that God has such power and that He exercises it. To the believer the creation itself is evidence of God exercising this power. Enoch moved mountains and changed the course of rivers. The brother of Jared moved the mountain Zerin. Moses parted the Red Sea. The earth was divided in the days of Peleg. The face of the earth was changed in America at the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. At the coming of the Lord the earth will be violently changed at His word:

D&C 109:73-74
73 That thy church may come forth out of the wilderness of darkness, and shine forth fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners;
74 And be adorned as a bride for that day when thou shalt unveil the heavens, and cause the mountains to flow down at thy presence, and the valleys to be exalted, the rough places made smooth; that thy glory may fill the earth;

D&C 133:21-24
21 And he shall utter his voice out of Zion, and he shall speak from Jerusalem, and his voice shall be heard among all people;
22 And it shall be a voice as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder, which shall break down the mountains, and the valleys shall not be found.
23 He shall command the great deep, and it shall be driven back into the north countries, and the islands shall become one land;
24 And the land of Jerusalem and the land of Zion shall be turned back into their own place, and the earth shall be like as it was in the days before it was divided.

Notice that “the earth shall be like as it was in the days before it was divided.” This tells us that at the time of the Flood the earth was smooth and that there were no exceedingly high places or low places. This makes a universal flood feasible.

The scriptures from Genesis to 2 Peter, to the Book of Mormon, to the Doctrine and Covenants, to the Pearl of Great Price, all speak of a universal flood. Jesus himself said:

Matthew 24:36-39
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
37 But as the days of Noe [were], so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them ALL away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. (emphasis added)

If all of the combined scriptures are wrong about the universal flood then the scriptures are not the word of God. If the scriptures are not the word of God then there is no God. Everyone can choose for himself whether to believe the current prevalent interpretation of geologists, or to believe the word of God.

Theodore

I grew up being taught the prophet can never lead the church astray. Who said that? Where does it say that?

President Wilford Woodruff, fourth president of the Church, may have been the first one who first publicly expressed this concept. Many other prophets have emphasized it since.

Wilford Woodruff, The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, edited by G. Homer Durham, p.74
There are men today, there will be men till the coming of the Son of Man, I expect, who feel as though they ought to lead the Church, as though it is not going on right-that this, that, and the other is wrong. I say to all Israel at this day, I say to the whole world, that the God of Israel, who organized this Church and kingdom, never ordained any President or Presidency to lead it astray. Hear it, ye Israel, no man who has ever breathed the breath of life can hold these keys of the kingdom of God and lead the people astray.-MS 51:546-547 (1889).

Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, edited by Edward L. Kimball, p.459
No one in this Church will ever go far astray who ties himself securely to the authorities whom the Lord has placed in his Church. This Church will never go astray; the Quorum of the Twelve will never lead you into bypaths; it never has and never will.

Ezra Taft Benson, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson , p.137
I remember years ago when I was a Bishop I had President [Heber J.] Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home. Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: “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.” Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, “But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.” (CR October 1960, p. 78.)

Gordon B. Hinckley, Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, p.296
I wish that each of you would remember that tonight you heard me say that this Church is true. Other churches also do much good, but this is the “true and living Church” of the Lord Jesus Christ, whose name it bears. (See D&C 1:30.) Be true to it. Cling to it. If you will do so it will become as an anchor in the midst of a stormy sea. It will be a light to your lives and a foundation upon which to build them. I give you my solemn testimony that this Church will never be led astray. It is in the hands of God, and should any of its leaders ever attempt to lead it astray, His is the power to remove them. He has said that He has restored His work for the last time, “never again to be destroyed nor given to other people” (D&C 138:44; see also Dan. 2:44-45). (“Stand True and Faithful,” Ensign, May 1996, p. 93.)

Re the Genesis account of the creation: It may be describing the daily rituals of the ancient Egyptian priesthood:

http://books.google.com/books?id=1j9vdjjyIBEC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=egyptian+translation+of+genesis&source=bl&ots=IdjqnEVn_X&sig=TBBhQiZq4ct6KCcOa1DiatAV83M&hl=en&ei=Y51FSobDM4roM_zq3LQD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Mormon 8:
28 Yea, it shall come in a day when the power of God shall be denied, and churches become defiled and be lifted up in the pride of their hearts; yea, even in a day when leaders of churches and teachers shall rise in the pride of their hearts, even to the envying of them who belong to their churches.

In order for the churches to become defiled they would have to have been pure from the start. To deny the power of God they would have had to have had the power of God from the start. The apostasy had taken place in the Old World long before he wrote this. He is talking about the future, our day.

I believe the Brethren have a better probability of knowing the will of the Lord than anyone else in the world with respect to the major questions — the matters as to which there is a guarantee that the Lord will not allow them to lead the Church astray. As to less significant matters, that confidence is not necessarily warranted.

The Brethren are afforded a deference and immunity from questioning that was not present in the early Church — either its incarnation in the meridian of time, where Paul “withstood [Peter] to the face, for he was to be blamed,” or in Joseph’s tenure. In American republican thought, it is gospel that allowing people or institutions to go unquestioned or unchecked leads to error. With the one exception of when error is prevented by supernatural, revelatory means, I believe this is sound thinking. Thus, when the typical left-liberal administrative busybody tells me to shut up and get in line with what all right-thinking people really *must* believe, I bristle.

As mentioned above, the Church has a guarantee that the Lord will not let the Brethren lead the Church “astray.” Since various Brethren have occasionally taught error in Conference addresses, or endorsed it in erroneous Church-published material — and have sometimes even openly acknowledged this, as in Elder McConkie’s famous retraction of aspects of his and other leaders’ teaching on race — I have to conclude that this supernatural backstop on the Church’s doctrinal integrity is limited in some respect. I have concluded — and I may be wrong — that the guarantee is similar to the Catholic doctrine of the “sensus fidei,” the guarantee that the main body of Catholic doctrine will be miraculously preserved against fundamental error, even as occasional errors are made as to peripheral matters.

Outside the sphere of this guarantee, however, I believe there may be areas of knowledge where the Brethren may not be more likely to know the will of the Lord — that is, the Lord’s truth — than other people. For instance, a few years ago, the Ensign published an article endorsing the literal Genesis account of a global flood. On this point, I think the evidence is overwhelming that the geologists have a better understanding of the mind of the Lord on this issue than whoever wrote and approved that article. A more recent article repeated some of the weaker arguments of young-earth creationists. Regardless of what you believe about evolution, the author of that article knew less of the truth than others. The Primary lesson manual misrepresents other Christian churches’ teaching about the Trinity, and a recent Conference address misconstrued the language of the Athanasian Creed.

In secular spheres — that is, those spheres where revelation does not directly operate — we believe that insulation from critique invites error. Does that same dynamic operate in the Church, outside the sphere of the guarantee against major apostasy?

I am not particularly concerned that “following the Brethren” will lead me into serious error. As I wrote above, the First Presidency and the Twelve are very careful these days with their authoritative pronouncements, and I agree with what they’ve said. (I’m socially and politically conservative, so I’m spared the angst of the Mormon liberals who waver on the gay-marriage issue; I think they’re wrong on purely secular as well as doctrinal grounds, and I have no desire to wear one earring, let alone two.) I am more concerned with being saddled with things the Brethren have said in the past, in times when the teaching culture was less cautious — things that I simply cannot accept as true. It’s a matter of keeping sand out from under my foundation.

Sorry about the sarcasm.

In every General Conference all of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve speak. At the end of almost every conference what has been said is endorsed by the Prophet. The addresses are then published in the Ensign, which lists as the publishers all of the names of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. I agree that it may not carry quite the same weight as a special document with all of their signatures appearing at the bottom, but what they each said is sanctioned by them all. Additionally there are many, many documents published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that must be, and are, approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. Such documents are the “General Handbook of Instructions,” the missionary manual “Preach My Gospel,” and many others.

As far as infallibility is concerned, you left out my rule number 2. If I was ascribing infallibility to them I would have stopped at rule number 1. As I subsequently noted the reason I have rule number 2 is that if I think they may be worng it is a reminder that “they have a better probability of knowing the will of the Lord than anyone else in the world.”

“I don’t ascribe to them infallibility….”

Compare:

“1. The combined First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are always right.”

How is that not infallibility?

Theodore, you have a first-rate intellect. Relying on sarcasm associates you with second-raters.

Fortunately, those combined bodies really don’t say much

You should listen to General Conference sometime.

Do the First Presidency and the Twelve themselves claim the infallibility you ascribe to them?

I don’t ascribe to them infallibility but they have a better probability of knowing the will of the Lord than anyone else in the world.

D&C 68:4
4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

And, yes, they feel the same way:

The whole burden of my message can be said in three simple words: FOLLOW THE BRETHREN. Though I may elaborate and attempt to illustrate and emphasize, there is the fact, the disarmingly simple fact, that in the three words, FOLLOW THE BRETHREN, rests the most important counsel that I could give to you…I bear witness, my brethren and sisters…that in this Church men are as they indeed must be—called of God by prophecy…May we learn to follow the brethren, I pray…(Boyd K. Packer, “Follow the Brethren” Speeches of the Year, BYU, 23 March 1965, p. 1–10.)

“Again, I think you are projecting your own worldly observations about the way things work in our imperfect world, and in our imperfect Church, and tarring the heavens with the same brush.

“Do you really have any idea how the Patriarchal Order will be implemented in heaven?”

D&C 88:

17 And the redemption of the soul is through him that quickeneth all things, in whose bosom it is decreed that the poor and the meek of the earth shall inherit it.
18 Therefore, it must needs be sanctified from all unrighteousness, that it may be prepared for the celestial glory;
19 For after it hath filled the measure of its creation, it shall be crowned with glory, even with the presence of God the Father;
20 That bodies who are of the celestial kingdom may possess it forever and ever; for, for this intent was it made and created, and for this intent are they sanctified.

25 And again, verily I say unto you, the earth abideth the law of a celestial kingdom, for it filleth the measure of its creation, and transgresseth not the law—

Do the First Presidency and the Twelve themselves claim the infallibility you ascribe to them?

Fortunately, those combined bodies really don’t say much, and they’ve got a good track record on the occasions when they do. However, a minuscule percentage of Church doctrine and policy is set by official statements of those combined bodies. Most authority is exercised by lower-downs (who are, of course, essentially ratified by the high presidencies).

This is possibly why we don’t know much about Heavenly Mother.

“The mortal inhabitants of planet X would have two Fathers in Heaven, but none of them would know which Father was theirs. Who would each individual pray to? It creates confusion and would not work.”

I don’t know… we’ve already split God into three people. So I don’t see why this would be all that particularly tricky.

To go further with your scenario, if husband 1 was to build planet X for his posterity and husband 2 was to build planet Y for his posterity, where would the wife and mother go? We are promised that our earth will become our celestial home and that we will dwell with our Father in Heaven. It wouldn’t be Heaven if our mother wasn’t there.

If, as you are suggesting, they would work out this problem by only building planet X then that creates another problem. The mortal inhabitants of planet X would have two Fathers in Heaven, but none of them would know which Father was theirs. Who would each individual pray to? It creates confusion and would not work.

There is no revealed precedence for it. In fact all revelation and history rejects it. It only exists in the mind as a “what if.”

“And again, I don’t see why multiple husbands would be a problem for that in a heaven where ALL are perfectly united in the Father anyway.

“Are you suggesting husband one would counteract husband two’s order to colonize planet X?”

It would be really inefficient

To your question about authority when it’s a no-go if the wife says no. That’s not true. Lehi would have gone into the wilderness with or without Saria. If the husband is wrong the wife should not follow, and if he’s right she should. He doesn’t follow her, he follows the Lord. Husbands don’t obey your wives, but you can humbly listen to their counsel. You are only using unrighteous dominion if you are not following the Lord and you force your wife to obey.

Are you suggesting husband one would counteract husband two’s order to colonize planet X?

The difficulty only comes when God reveals something that is only indirectly related to the first principle in which all the law is fulfilled, and whose connection to basic goodness isn’t immediately apparent.

I agree with this also. A case in point is the gay/lesbian issue today (which I really don’t want to get into right now). In my opinion this may be one of the main issues which will separate the Church from the world (Babylon). On the other hand, it may be one of the main issues that drives Christians from other churches to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as other churches embrace the gay/lesbian agenda. My take on this issue is to have confidence that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are following the will of God. I have two rules concerning my following them:

1. The combined First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are always right.

2. If I think that the combined First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are wrong, refer to rule number one.

Theodore

That is the best answer I can give you. Your authority lies in the ability and the responsibility to direct the family council as outlined above.

The Church is governed by councils, over which some one presides. A bishop has counselors from whom he receives counsel. The bishopric then prays about a certain decision or course of action and each member of the council is to receive confirmation from the Holy Ghost that the decision they are making is the correct one. If one member of the council disagrees then they are to consider the issue again. All decisions in the councils of the Church are to be unanimous.

These are principles that we should also apply in our family councils. The Holy Ghost is essential in achieving this. He knows everything!! We need to constantly tap into this infinite data base of knowledge to find the best course of action for us and our families. Our wives are our first councilors and the Lord has commanded us to “be one.” The only way we can “be one” is if we are both in tune with the Holy Ghost. I remember a theorem from high school geometry that says, “Things that are equal to the same thing are equal to each other.” If we are both in tune with the Holy Ghost we will both be in tune with each other.

The biggest mistakes that I made as a husband and a father is when I said things, or made decisions, or disciplined someone when there was an argument and I was angry.

3 Ne 11:29
29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

Every time I made a decision or tried to discipline under this influence I did the wrong thing, one hundred percent of the time. The key to successfully presiding over a family (or any group or organization for that matter) is to counsel together with the Spirit of the Holy Ghost.

I agree, especially regarding the difficulty.

The Catholic take on this (they having had long experience in balancing individual conscience with ecclesiastical authority, and recognizing that their Church isn’t always right) is to declare that the individual conscience must be the individual’s final resort on moral questions — but it must be a *properly informed* conscience. You can’t just neglect the training of your moral character, and willfully ignore facts that ought to convince a prudent man, and then plead “conscience” as an excuse to believe or act contrary to the Church’s teaching.

Most of the time, there really shouldn’t be much difficulty sorting out godly from ungodly demands for obedience. First, starting with the recognition that the whole law is encompassed in “Love thy neighbor as thyself” is a good rule. The harder a teaching is to square with that basic principle, the more scrutiny it ought to be given. Thus, “Do your duty!” in 1857 should’ve gotten more skepticism, whereas “Be faithful to your marriage covenants” should be pretty much beyond question.

Second, I operate under the presumption that a principle, to which obedience is demanded, which naturally follows from a person’s basic choice to have faith in a just God, is more likely to be true than a demand that I obey what appears to be an essentially arbitrary rule. God is not capricious; nor could a person be confident of ever finding, by faith, a God whose commandments were arbitrary.

The difficulty only comes when God reveals something that is only indirectly related to the first principle in which all the law is fulfilled, and whose connection to basic goodness isn’t immediately apparent.

So essentially, if your wife doesn’t agree, it’s a no-go anyway.

Can you tell me where the “authority” is in such an arrangement (other than the purely symbolic kind)?

I agree.

D&C 121:39-42
We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile…

The difficulty lies in knowing when someone in authority is conveying the will of God or whether they are exercising unrighteous dominion. It is particularly difficult when we disagree with them. Even though we may disagree with them they still might be right and it still might be the will of the Lord.

Our objective is to bring our will into line with God’s, so that our “obedience” ceases to be what we ordinarily understand the word to mean (i.e., doing what we’re told against our will). If someone commanded me to eat a pralines & cream ice cream cone, is it really proper to call it “obedience” when I do so, when I wanted to do that anyway?

We learn to recognize the goodness of God’s will, and adopt it as our own , by, among other things, obeying it, and thereby discovering their truth and goodness even when it may not at first have been apparent to us. It’s oversimplifying only a little to say that living the Gospel is an “acquired taste,” like raw oysters. (Really, it takes an awful lot of practice to get past the experience’s initial resemblance to swallowing a cold glob of phlegm.) Like your mother said — you’ll never know if you like it until you try.

When I call it “dangerous” to glorify obedience, the danger I have in mind arises from the fact that it is very easy for people in power to confuse their ideas with the revealed will of God. And there is no spiritual utility in obeying ungodly principles.

In any organization some ONE has to have the final responsibility, whether it is the chairman, the CEO, the president, the bishop or the father. What is every one’s responsibility usually turns out to be no one’s responsibility. There has to be one person where “the buck stops” being passed.

In the Celestial Kingdom there are no marriages performed. These sealings must be all be performed on earth prior to the end of the Millennium. The only women that are sealed to more than one man are those who had more that one husband in this life and died without being sealed to one of them, and it is not known who she would have chosen. That is a choice she will have to make prior to entering he Celestial Kingdom (Outside of the Celestial Kingdom there are no husbands and wives).

What evidence do you have to support your supposition that it might be otherwise?

What evidence do you have that marriages of multiple men to one woman has ever been successful in any society?

“That same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there.” (D&C 130:2)