Freedom Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 Mind you, I feel we were wrong to try and legislate our religious beliefs via Prop 8 -- but that does not mean the Prophets have gotten the core beliefs regarding SSM wrong.When the brethren collectively say they feel inspired to take a certain action, and this decision is ratified by the first presidency quorum of the 12, presidency of the seventy, and first quorum of the 70, are you suggesting that they are simply wrong? Are they wrong because, despite being prophets seers and revelators, they do not understand the difference between bigotry and revelation? Or are you arguing that you are the arbiter of Gods will and feel qualified to determine what action needs to be taken and when but these leaders are not? If this is the case, then why hasn't God make you the prophet? God has all this power to select his chosen servants and yet, due to a gross oversight on his part, he didn't notice you and your deep and penetrating wisdom? This seems to be your argument.
Stone holm Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 When the brethren collectively say they feel inspired to take a certain action, and this decision is ratified by the first presidency quorum of the 12, presidency of the seventy, and first quorum of the 70, are you suggesting that they are simply wrong? Are they wrong because, despite being prophets seers and revelators, they do not understand the difference between bigotry and revelation? Or are you arguing that you are the arbiter of Gods will and feel qualified to determine what action needs to be taken and when but these leaders are not? If this is the case, then why hasn't God make you the prophet? God has all this power to select his chosen servants and yet, due to a gross oversight on his part, he didn't notice you and your deep and penetrating wisdom? This seems to be your argument.In my humble opinion, yes they got it wrong. No. I am not claiming that I am worthy to hold their position or would be more likely to get things right. Do I while acknowledging their authority to run the Church thereby acknowledge that they are infallible? Absolutely not. And if that is the full substance of your argument, then it is a weak argument which does not reconcile why it is appropriate for us to attempt tp legislate our religious beliefs. When it comes to matters of faith and personal conformity to God's laws, then the Bretheren are to be accorded great deference when it comes to politics, well not so much.
Freedom Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 In my humble opinion, yes they got it wrong. No. I am not claiming that I am worthy to hold their position or would be more likely to get things right. Do I while acknowledging their authority to run the Church thereby acknowledge that they are infallible? Absolutely not. And if that is the full substance of your argument, then it is a weak argument which does not reconcile why it is appropriate for us to attempt tp legislate our religious beliefs. When it comes to matters of faith and personal conformity to God's laws, then the Bretheren are to be accorded great deference when it comes to politics, well not so much.It is a week argument to say they were collectively inspired to take this action and all 100 or so of them are incapable of properly discerning the spirit? So no legislation should be influenced by the church? realy?
rockpond Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 When the brethren collectively say they feel inspired to take a certain action, and this decision is ratified by the first presidency quorum of the 12, presidency of the seventy, and first quorum of the 70, are you suggesting that they are simply wrong? Are they wrong because, despite being prophets seers and revelators, they do not understand the difference between bigotry and revelation? Or are you arguing that you are the arbiter of Gods will and feel qualified to determine what action needs to be taken and when but these leaders are not? If this is the case, then why hasn't God make you the prophet? God has all this power to select his chosen servants and yet, due to a gross oversight on his part, he didn't notice you and your deep and penetrating wisdom? This seems to be your argument.Brigham Young said: “Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman Empire... Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a hold sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.” Deseret News, August 6, 1862Today the Church leadership released the following statement on MormonNewsroom.org: "We firmly support the divinely appointed definition of marriage as the union between a man and a woman because it is the single most important institution for strengthening children, families, and society."We also used to preach that one must be married in this life but we've unwound that doctrine in order to allow for gays and lesbians to be promised all of the blessings of exaltation if they just live righteous celibacy in mortality.What I see is a lack of revealed clarity on this subject. I see that demonstrated by the continual pointing to the Proclamation on the Family as a foundation for our definition of marriage. And yet, the Proclamation is not revelation.So maybe we still await a full restoration of this principle.So I will continue to pray, and listen, and study, and seek. And for now, I will follow the counsel as best I can by using the Holy Spirit to direct me. 1
CASteinman Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 the Proclamation is not revelation.I do not think you can assert this positively with any authority. I won't do "CFR" but I don't think you have any authoritative sources to back up your belief on this matter.
CASteinman Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 What I see is a lack of revealed clarity on this subject. This might be a matter of your personal interest and desire to see a lack of revealed clarity on the matter, rather than it actually being unclear.
rockpond Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 I do not think you can assert this positively with any authority. I won't do "CFR" but I don't think you have any authoritative sources to back up your belief on this matter.I'm not aware of it being declared as revelation. Are you? I know that President Packer called it revelation in his Oct 2010 address but then retracted that in his published words. Which leads me to believe that it is not revelation. 1
rockpond Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 This might be a matter of your personal interest and desire to see a lack of revealed clarity on the matter, rather than it actually being unclear.That's possible. But I keep studying and discussing and am not yet aware of revealed clarity on the subject of marriage including marriage between two people of the same gender. At this point, I just see what seems to be an evolution of doctrine on the matter. And I tend to believe that evolution just might be part of the restoration we have to work through. 1
Stone holm Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 Brigham Young said: “Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman Empire... Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a hold sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.” Deseret News, August 6, 1862Today the Church leadership released the following statement on MormonNewsroom.org: "We firmly support the divinely appointed definition of marriage as the union between a man and a woman because it is the single most important institution for strengthening children, families, and society."We also used to preach that one must be married in this life but we've unwound that doctrine in order to allow for gays and lesbians to be promised all of the blessings of exaltation if they just live righteous celibacy in mortality.What I see is a lack of revealed clarity on this subject. I see that demonstrated by the continual pointing to the Proclamation on the Family as a foundation for our definition of marriage. And yet, the Proclamation is not revelation.So maybe we still await a full restoration of this principle.So I will continue to pray, and listen, and study, and seek. And for now, I will follow the counsel as best I can by using the Holy Spirit to direct me.I was kind of with you right up to the implication as to gays and lesbians. It doesn't take a real rocket scientist to see where the Church is going with that doctrine, the concept is that the Lord will "fix" gays and lesbians in the resurrection. And backing away from having to be married in this life, was not prompted to give some assurance to gays and lesbians, but rather to give some assurance to the multitude of single women in the Church who have not been able to find a suitable mate. That concept has been around a lot, lot, longer than any real thought being given to the gays and lesbians. What the Church is doing right now is softening its tone in recognition that same sex attraction may in fact be hardwired in some way for some individuals and if that is true then God will make it right somehow in the future if they are prepared to resist those attractions throughout their life. Just as nobody expects that the person born with one arm is going to be resurrected without a complete set of limbs.
rockpond Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 I was kind of with you right up to the implication as to gays and lesbians. It doesn't take a real rocket scientist to see where the Church is going with that doctrine, the concept is that the Lord will "fix" gays and lesbians in the resurrection. And backing away from having to be married in this life, was not prompted to give some assurance to gays and lesbians, but rather to give some assurance to the multitude of single women in the Church who have not been able to find a suitable mate. That concept has been around a lot, lot, longer than any real thought being given to the gays and lesbians. What the Church is doing right now is softening its tone in recognition that same sex attraction may in fact be hardwired in some way for some individuals and if that is true then God will make it right somehow in the future if they are prepared to resist those attractions throughout their life. Just as nobody expects that the person born with one arm is going to be resurrected without a complete set of limbs.Yes, that "backing away" and "softening its tone in recognition that same sex attraction may in fact be hardwired" reflect doctrinal evolution.
Stone holm Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 Yes, that "backing away" and "softening its tone in recognition that same sex attraction may in fact be hardwired" reflect doctrinal evolution.Far be it from me to say that doctrine isn't clarified in the wake of cultural evolution, but althoug I frequently employ that argument -- it does have its limits, and I think you are pushing it beyond its limits in this respect.
rockpond Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 Far be it from me to say that doctrine isn't clarified in the wake of cultural evolution, but althoug I frequently employ that argument -- it does have its limits, and I think you are pushing it beyond its limits in this respect.I believe that the Proclamation, the political efforts by the Brethren to define marriage, working toward a better understanding of the nature of homosexuality, etc. all reflect their righteous desire to clarify the true nature of marriage as well as eternal identity and relationships. I just don't think we've arrived at a fullness yet.But, fair enough, how am I pushing it beyond its limits?
Stone holm Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 I believe that the Proclamation, the political efforts by the Brethren to define marriage, working toward a better understanding of the nature of homosexuality, etc. all reflect their righteous desire to clarify the true nature of marriage as well as eternal identity and relationships. I just don't think we've arrived at a fullness yet.But, fair enough, how am I pushing it beyond its limits?I am not overly infatuated with the Proclamation and I have come to rationalize that the political and legal actions of the Brethren as an attempt to make sure they have a legal theological shield in the future when a majority of the States have recognized SSM. I believe you have pushed it too far if you are implying that the Church will someday recognize SSM as being an acceptable association that can lead to exaltation. I think that goes beyond a cultural quirk into inspired teachings with respect to how the heavens operate, namely gods spawning gods in embryo. It is because of this that the gender arguments are being made in the Proclamation on Family -- unfortunately, the whole gay/lesbian dispute may be retarding the ability of the Church to evolve with respect to women and the priesthood. In fact, I think fear of the potential implications surrounding homosexuality is what caused the Church to come out so strongly against the ERA in the late 20th Century.
CASteinman Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 I'm not aware of it being declared as revelation. Are you? That is not required for it to be one.
Stone holm Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 That is not required for it to be one.It comes pretty close given the way it was promulgated and presented. I wish they would send out copies of the Proclamation on Collaborative Economy where they denounced the competition involved in free markety capitalism back in the day. I wonder how many conservatives would stand up and salue that one if they sent out little copies to paste in your Scriptures....lol
Darren10 Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 We will have to agree to disagree on this. I believe that Mormonism teaches generations of gods, not one initial first cause type god. In fact our hymn indicates that we will never be able to find the first generation in which gods came to be, not sure that I understand why -- but I defer to Eliza Snow's wisdom in this.Within Mormomism you'll find speculative teachings on generations of gods and I think there's truth to that. It does not teach us to worship generations of God but only God through His Son. That God was and is the beginning and the eternal God of all time.
Darren10 Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 the need for culture to advance to the point where men and women are willing to share power and view each other as equals That's happening right now.But gay marriage is something altogether. Mind you, I feel we were wrong to try and legislate our religious beliefs via Prop 8 -- but that does not mean the Prophets have gotten the core beliefs regarding SSM wrong.I think it was very right and foresighted to oppose same sex marriage in California. I got this article via Dan Peterson's facebook which linked ot his Patheos blog which links to mormonchronicle. I find the argument compelling and it fits right in with what I see as the ultimate end of gay activism: use the power of the state to compell religions to perform same sex marriages ad to not "discriminate" in any manny against homosexuals.Patheos post: “Gays to Be Married in the Denmark Temple?”Mormon Chronicle: Gays to be Married in the Denmark Temple?
CASteinman Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 I wish they would send out copies of the Proclamation on Collaborative Economy where they denounced the competition involved in free markety capitalism back in the day. I don't think that they actually did what you claim that they did.
Storm Rider Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 (edited) Yes, that "backing away" and "softening its tone in recognition that same sex attraction may in fact be hardwired" reflect doctrinal evolution.In what way do you see this as "doctrinal evolution"? What doctrine evolved? Edited March 28, 2013 by Storm Rider
Stone holm Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 I don't think that they actually did what you claim that they did.What do think they did in that Proclamation?
rockpond Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 (edited) That is not required for it to be one.But having a prophet, seer, and revelator edit his language from calling it a "revelation" to calling it a "guide" seems telling. And, the document itself does not purport to be a revelation from the Lord: The first line states: "WE, THE FIRST PRESIDENCY and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim..." If it was a revelation from the Lord then wouldn't He be given credit somewhere? Edited March 28, 2013 by rockpond 1
USU78 Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 Yes, that "backing away" and "softening its tone in recognition that same sex attraction may in fact be hardwired" reflect doctrinal evolution.An acknowledgement that homosexuality may be an inborn disorder (like tendency to addiction or somesuch) is quite a different thing from changing doctrine.Can a practicing homosexual person get a temple recommend?No.Will a practicing homosexual be given a calling whose duties include charge over youth or children of the same sex as the practicing homosexual?No.That was true 50 years ago and remains true today.
rockpond Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 In what way do you see this as "doctrinal evolution"? What doctrine evolved?1. Wasn't one of the principles behind the practice of polygamy that eternal marriage (sealed in mortality) was required for exaltation?2. Homosexuality as an immutable trait vs. a choice vs. nothing more than a sexual practice.
rockpond Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 An acknowledgement that homosexuality may be an inborn disorder (like tendency to addiction or somesuch) is quite a different thing from changing doctrine.Can a practicing homosexual person get a temple recommend?No.Will a practicing homosexual be given a calling whose duties include charge over youth or children of the same sex as the practicing homosexual?No.That was true 50 years ago and remains true today.50 years ago it was never stated that way. That's the evolution.
Recommended Posts