Elder Ballard Speaks To The Young Adults About Three Things

[CV75]

I've agreed with you and Scott, repeatedly, that we are all influenced by social trends. You, me, the prophet, and everyone else.

What I'm saying is that I don't want the church to accept gay marriage because I want a progressive church that adapts to social trends. I want gay marriage accepted within the church because of my belief that it is God's will.

Similarly, I don't think you or I believe that the Church opened up the priesthood and temple to all worthy men just so that we could say we had caught up to societal trends. We believe it was done because it was God's will.

Can we agree on those two preceding paragraphs?

What are my jaundiced assumptions about President Kimball?

As far as agreeing with what you’re saying: I do agree that OD2 was God’s will. But from your posts, I honestly can’t tell for which reason you want the Church to accept gay marriage. It could be for either reason, and you might be mistaken in your attribution. That’s not a slight; you just haven’t rationally defended and justified the position that it is God’s will. Whatever your reason, the point you were really trying to make was that “it isn’t productive or civil to portray either side in a way that diminishes sincerely held beliefs,” which we agree on.

The jaundiced assumptions about President Kimball come across in that you say he condemned prejudice against non-whites on one hand (using adjectives such as “wonderful,” “clear” and “profound”) and “yet” (indicating that he acted in some opposition to that) stood by prejudicial teachings against blacks for another 24 years, and portray that it was because he could not recognize the Peter “principle” in his own life.

Regarding the suggestion that it is not “unclean,” I see no reason to believe gay “marriage” was ever a divinely accepted practice in Peter’s or any other day, or that traditional marriage is only a schoolteacher leading up to its allowance and which was done away in Christ.

[rockpond]

Whatever your reason, the point you were really trying to make was that “it isn’t productive or civil to portray either side in a way that diminishes sincerely held beliefs,” which we agree on.

 

Sweet.  Glad we found that common ground.

 

The jaundiced assumptions about President Kimball come across in that you say he condemned prejudice against non-whites on one hand (using adjectives such as “wonderful,” “clear” and “profound”) and “yet” (indicating that he acted in some opposition to that) stood by prejudicial teachings against blacks for another 24 years, and portray that it was because he could not recognize the Peter “principle” in his own life.

 

What is incorrect about that?  Or, which part of that do you disagree with?

 

Regarding the suggestion that it is not “unclean,” I see no reason to believe gay “marriage” was ever a divinely accepted practice in Peter’s or any other day, or that traditional marriage is only a schoolteacher leading up to its allowance and which was done away in Christ.

 

My belief system doesn't compel such a prerequisite.

[CV75]

What is incorrect about that?  Or, which part of that do you disagree with?

Why would I disagree with my own post?

By juxtaposing his speech in 1954 against his revelation in 1978 as demonstration that he struggled “to see what the Lord hath made clean” with regards to “Race and the Priesthood,” you’ve gone through some trouble to wrongly characterize him as a hypocritical, confused racist in those intervening years. This reveals more about your attitude toward him than anything factual about him.

So don’t complain if folks conclude that belief in gay “marriage” is based on not understanding the simple idea that “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common [unclean]” really refers to the people of the earth for whom He atoned, and not to their unrepented abominations and perverted practices and covenants (Acts 10:15-28). Or if folks conclude that the belief is a product of the current social trend.

[rockpond]

Why would I disagree with my own post?

 

You said that I had was making a "jaundiced assumption".  I asked what that assumption was.  You wrote:  "The jaundiced assumptions about President Kimball come across in that you say he condemned prejudice against non-whites on one hand (using adjectives such as “wonderful,” “clear” and “profound”) and “yet” (indicating that he acted in some opposition to that) stood by prejudicial teachings against blacks for another 24 years, and portray that it was because he could not recognize the Peter “principle” in his own life."

 

I was asking what was incorrect or what you disagreed with that made it a "jaundiced assumption".

 

By juxtaposing his speech in 1954 against his revelation in 1978 as demonstration that he struggled “to see what the Lord hath made clean” with regards to “Race and the Priesthood,” you’ve gone through some trouble to wrongly characterize him as a hypocritical, confused racist in those intervening years. This reveals more about your attitude toward him than anything factual about him.

So don’t complain if folks conclude that belief in gay “marriage” is based on not understanding the simple idea that “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common [unclean]” really refers to the people of the earth for whom He atoned, and not to their unrepented abominations and perverted practices and covenants (Acts 10:15-28). Or if folks conclude that the belief is a product of the current social trend.

 

I have not characterized him as a "hypocritical, confused racist".  I suspect that's your take on my words because I think you consider me to be a critic of the church.  If anything, I characterized President Kimball as a mortal, like the rest of us.  I am certain he was serving faithfully and diligently working to lead the church according to God's will.

[CV75]

You said that I had was making a "jaundiced assumption".  I asked what that assumption was.  You wrote:  "The jaundiced assumptions about President Kimball come across in that you say he condemned prejudice against non-whites on one hand (using adjectives such as “wonderful,” “clear” and “profound”) and “yet” (indicating that he acted in some opposition to that) stood by prejudicial teachings against blacks for another 24 years, and portray that it was because he could not recognize the Peter “principle” in his own life."

 

I was asking what was incorrect or what you disagreed with that made it a "jaundiced assumption".

 

 

I have not characterized him as a "hypocritical, confused racist".  I suspect that's your take on my words because I think you consider me to be a critic of the church.  If anything, I characterized President Kimball as a mortal, like the rest of us.  I am certain he was serving faithfully and diligently working to lead the church according to God's will.

I explained what made it a jaundiced assumption--I do not consider my post to be incorrect, and of course I do not disagree with my own post.

 

It is my take on your words because that would be consistent with the tenor or your arguments. I don't consider you to be a critic of the Church; I really don't know. I do consider you to be firmly rooted in the idea of gay "marriage" and to use an LDS framework to present it.

 

Additionally, I don't consider the idea or your use of the LDS framework to be inspired by God. I wouldn't even mention that except you brought it up and haven't been able to show otherwise, which granted, is a tall order since it requires bridging that which is rational with that which is not.

[rockpond]

I explained what made it a jaundiced assumption--I do not consider my post to be incorrect, and of course I do not disagree with my own post.

 

It is my take on your words because that would be consistent with the tenor or your arguments. I don't consider you to be a critic of the Church; I really don't know. I do consider you to be firmly rooted in the idea of gay "marriage" and to use an LDS framework to present it.

 

Additionally, I don't consider the idea or your use of the LDS framework to be inspired by God. I wouldn't even mention that except you brought it up and haven't been able to show otherwise, which granted, is a tall order since it requires bridging that which is rational with that which is not.

 

Well, there was nothing "jaundiced" in what I wrote about President Kimball.  And there was nothing I wrote that you have identified as incorrect.

 

As for your opinion of my tenor - I'm not sure how to change the tone that you read into my words.  But I'll try to be more clear in the future.

 

I'm curious though about your last statement:  what do you consider to be irrational about my beliefs with regard to gay marriage?

Edited May 12, 2014 by rockpond

[CV75]

Well, there was nothing "jaundiced" in what I wrote about President Kimball.

You can say that, but that is how it comes across to me. That is one reason it is better to defend your ideas than to defend yourself – especially where you choose to remain anonymous and no one can verify whether you are who or what you say they are. The same goes for me, and that is why I don’t try to defend myself, my motives, etc., just my ideas and what I stand for.

And there was nothing I wrote that you have identified as incorrect.

This might be the third time: It is incorrect to do what I described in the second paragraph of post #128. Underlying that is the incorrect understanding of what Acts 10:15 means, as I described in the third paragraph. You can refute and disagree, but you haven’t made a good argument as to how or why.

As for your opinion of my tenor - I'm not sure how to change the tone that you read into my words.  But I'll try to be more clear in the future.

I don't think your tone and the tactics that convey it are a matter of clarity but of your strategy, and of course my opinion.

I'm curious though about your last statement:  what do you consider to be irrational about my beliefs with regard to gay marriage?

I explained this already in #108. Revelation and testimony, and personal “promptings of the Spirit and answers to prayer” are most fundamentally spiritual and spiritually conveyed, and so they are not rational processes. They stimulate the heart and mind but are still fundamentally a product of one’s spirit. We only try to express them as rational ideas in discussions like these in an attempt to communicate and defend them. In the proper setting, the Spirit facilitates this sharing of spiritual truth. We can only agree with one another when we sense (whether on a rational or non-rational basis) that have shared the same spiritual experience.

So your spiritual belief is not rational (no one's is). You are sharing your translation of it into rational explanation, but you undermine that by appealing to a personal revelation that others don’t or acn't relate to and to the sanctity of your right to personal belief.

[rockpond]

You can say that, but that is how it comes across to me. That is one reason it is better to defend your ideas than to defend yourself – especially where you choose to remain anonymous and no one can verify whether you are who or what you say they are. The same goes for me, and that is why I don’t try to defend myself, my motives, etc., just my ideas and what I stand for.

 

Interesting.  While there are times where I definitely try to defend specific ideas here in what you would call a more rational manner, I mostly find myself very interested in what motivates individual members of the church and how they think through these things.

 

I explained this already in #108. Revelation and testimony, and personal “promptings of the Spirit and answers to prayer” are most fundamentally spiritual and spiritually conveyed, and so they are not rational processes. They stimulate the heart and mind but are still fundamentally a product of one’s spirit. We only try to express them as rational ideas in discussions like these in an attempt to communicate and defend them. In the proper setting, the Spirit facilitates this sharing of spiritual truth. We can only agree with one another when we sense (whether on a rational or non-rational basis) that have shared the same spiritual experience.

So your spiritual belief is not rational (no one's is). You are sharing your translation of it into rational explanation, but you undermine that by appealing to a personal revelation that others don’t or acn't relate to and to the sanctity of your right to personal belief.

 

Thanks.  I think I now have a clearer understanding of your views on this.  You'll notice that the "rational" theme I've tried to weave through my personal spiritual beliefs was trying to understand how we view the role and responsibility of our prophets and apostles.

 

 

This might be the third time: It is incorrect to do what I described in the second paragraph of post #128. Underlying that is the incorrect understanding of what Acts 10:15 means, as I described in the third paragraph. You can refute and disagree, but you haven’t made a good argument as to how or why.

 

Here's the second paragraph from post #128:

 

So don’t complain if folks conclude that belief in gay “marriage” is based on not understanding the simple idea that “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common [unclean]” really refers to the people of the earth for whom He atoned, and not to their unrepented abominations and perverted practices and covenants (Acts 10:15-28). Or if folks conclude that the belief is a product of the current social trend.

 

To support the conclusion you've reached here about gay marriage, I'd have to believe that there was a doctrinal/scriptural/spiritual or rational reason to conclude that a committed union between two homosexual people represented an abomination or perversion.  I see no such reason.

[CV75]

You'll notice that the "rational" theme I've tried to weave through my personal spiritual beliefs was trying to understand how we view the role and responsibility of our prophets and apostles.

And as you can see, people view their roles differently.

To support the conclusion you've reached here about gay marriage, I'd have to believe that there was a doctrinal/scriptural/spiritual or rational reason to conclude that a committed union between two homosexual people represented an abomination or perversion.  I see no such reason.

You’d only have to believe that Acts 10:15 refers to God having atoned for everyone’s sins and not as you used it, to condone same-sex “marriage,” the latter being a perversion of the verse, the belief in which would be an error (willful or in ignorance), and the practice of which would be an abomination.

[rockpond]

You’d only have to believe that Acts 10:15 refers to God having atoned for everyone’s sins and not as you used it, to condone same-sex “marriage,” the latter being a perversion of the verse, the belief in which would be an error (willful or in ignorance), and the practice of which would be an abomination.

 

From Acts 10...

 

 11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

 

 12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

 

 13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

 

 14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

 

 15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

 

Later in the chapter Peter applies the lesson...

 

28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

 

And then ultimately arrives here...

 

 34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

 

 35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

 

 

I'm not sure how my interpretation is a "perversion of the verse".  Wasn't Peter told not to call any man "common or unclean" as God is no respecter of persons?

[CV75]

I'm not sure how my interpretation is a "perversion of the verse".  Wasn't Peter told not to call any man "common or unclean" as God is no respecter of persons?

I think you’re still perverting it with the suggestion that it pertains to gay "marriage." The message is that the Gospel is to be taken to all irrespective of nation, and that Christ atoned for all so that those that “worketh righteousness” are accepted of Him. Applied to gay people, these verses mean the Lord has prepared the way for them, to be proselytized and repent of their sins just like any others among the Gentiles (as well as the Jews). But this has nothing to do with God approving gay “marriage.”

[rockpond]

I think you’re still perverting it with the suggestion that it pertains to gay "marriage." The message is that the Gospel is to be taken to all irrespective of nation, and that Christ atoned for all so that those that “worketh righteousness” are accepted of Him. Applied to gay people, these verses mean the Lord has prepared the way for them, to be proselytized and repent of their sins just like any others among the Gentiles (as well as the Jews). But this has nothing to do with God approving gay “marriage.”

 

I don't read it as a specific approval of gay marriage.  I read it in the sense that it offers some insight into the mind and will of God.

 

Those who "feareth" him (respect, worship) and "worketh righteousness" are accepted of him.  Gay people can certainly fall into that category.

[CV75]

I don't read it as a specific approval of gay marriage.  I read it in the sense that it offers some insight into the mind and will of God.

 

Those who "feareth" him (respect, worship) and "worketh righteousness" are accepted of him.  Gay people can certainly fall into that category.

I'm glad you agree that it is not "a specific approval of gay marriage" and that gay people can fear Him, work righteousness and be accepted of Him. And of course Acts 10 offers some insight into the mind and will of God!