Satan Really Is An Evil Genius

[Mystery Meat]

Let me clarify, as the title of this thread seems to be confusing people. I do not think Satan's cunning is anything that should be lauded. The point of the title is just to demonstrate how I believe he has distorted the discussion by appealing to the good in people. When people promote evil believing it to be good, I think that is pretty crafty. That doesn't mean we have to fall for it or that we aren't capable of rejecting his tactics.

[thesometimesaint]

If I think about what I would do if I were trying to destroy God's plan I think I would do exactly what we see happening in the world today. As a society we are all disgusted with the prejudices in the past. And rightfully so. The things that happened and the things that we did as a country and as a society are truly deplorable. But I find it fascinating that part of the reason at least in my opinion, that a lot of people who support same sex marriage do so precisely because they don't want to be labeled as a bigot. I think Satan, and I do believe he is behind it, has done a masterful job of equating racial bias with a firm belief that same sex marriage is a violation of heavenly law.

I am sure many will disagree, but let me ask you this. If marriage between man and woman is the only form of marriage God approves of, how better to win advocate to your cause then by making those who support Gods law bigots for doing so.

 

I oppose SSM on moral grounds, but can find no legally consistent way to make/keep it illegal under our Constitution. As was recently said in GC Just because something is legal doesn't mean we should do it.

[Mystery Meat]

I don't disagree.

[Tsuzuki]

Satan is the Holy Ghost, the third member of the Godhead.

[DarkScythe]

I know what you mean, Tsuzuki, I think. Not everyone will understand what you are saying.  Context is always important. Topics with you in it is always a good thing and always quite interesting and brimming with knowledge.

[Ahab]

I know what you mean, Tsuzuki, I think. Not everyone will understand what you are saying. Context is always important. Topics with you in it is always a good thing and always quite interesting and brimming with knowledge.

Tsuzuki's got a groveling sycophant.

Tsuzuki's got a groveling sycophant.

Just not quite as many as Satan's got.

[DarkScythe]

Tsuzuki's got a groveling sycophant.

Tsuzuki's got a groveling sycophant.

Just not quite as many as Satan's got.

 

Lol you are funny. don't worry, it is a good follow up post.   who wants me a their groveling sycophant? also Tsuzuki don't have enough money for that.

Edited May 10, 2014 by DarkScythe

[california boy]

I love how the same lack of revelation argument keeps being used. You attempt to win the day by setting false criteria for revelation. The prophet does not have to say, "thus sayeth the Lord," for the words to be the divine in origin. You need to gain a stronger grasp on revelation, what it is, what it looks like, what it sounds like and how it is received. You clearly do not understand God's methods for revealing truth. Revelation rarely comes in large, dramatic heavenly pronouncements. The first vision was one form of revelation. The all worthy men was another. The idea to develop city creek was a third. Each revelations. Each valid communications to further and protect God's work. Your setting a condition that the prophets must come out and say, on December 21st of this year we received the following revelation... This is a false condition and nowhere in Mormon or ancient theology is this a requirement for a divine proclamation.

 

The only reason I can see for trying to establish this false condition is for personal justification.

 

Perhaps it is because of that same lack of revelation that has gotten the church into creating "doctrine" that really wasn't from God at all in the past.  And perhaps no one on this board has been able to clearly state what qualifies as a revelation from God and what is just a joint consensus by men sitting around together and agreeing unanimously on something.  If simply all agreeing that something is a revelation from God is all it takes to qualify then those joint decisions would not have later had to be denounced.  

 

You are right however.  I once thought I clearly knew what was a revelation.  The prophet declared it as such.  But now I have found out that was not something I could always rely on.  So tell me, how does one know if it is a revelation from God unless the prophet is willing to declare, like in the lifting of the ban on the priesthood, that it was indeed from God?  And if in fact if the prophet does receive direct revelation from God, why is it so difficult for him to declare it as such.  

 

Actually if it is a revelation from God, why does it require a consensus from anyone else?  I would say that if the prophet received a revelation, having the 12 approve of such a revelation before declaring as such is a bit presumptuous don't you think?  Did Joseph  need to gather a group of men to declare that the Father and the Son appeared to him in a grove of trees?  Did a group of men need to agree that Joseph's 76 section of the Doctrine & Covenants came from God?  It all comes down to this.  Do we have a prophet, seer and revelator who speaks with God or not?  If the prophet does indeed receive revelation why isn't he willing to declare it as such?  Why is there any need at all to have these debates about whether something is a revelation or not.  The only time it would be difficult to say "Thus sayeth the Lord" is if in fact, the Lord did not say it.  If God did not say it, the doctrine should really read "Thus sayeth the leaders of the church that this is their best guess at this time what God wants us to do"  

[california boy]

The problem with CB's use of Timothy has at least two BIG problems. First and most importantly, is he fails to recognize God's definition of marriage (between man and woman). The second problem is related to the first. He is guilty of wresting the scriptures. It is ironic that he is using Paul's words (selectively) to support SSM considering how strong Paul came out against homosexuality. He ignores those verses and thus wrests the scriptures. He further wrests the scriptures by ignoring the pattern for marriage (man and woman) that is used throughout. No SSM has ever been sanctioned by God. It has always been man and woman. 

 

Always.

Yes I fail to recognize God's definition of marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman because He has never declared that is His definition.  If you can find such a definition from God, now would be the time to speak up.

 

I only bring up the scriptures to show that not everything a prophet writes is from God or even claimed to be from God.  Paul writes a LOT of things in his letters to different branches of the church that are not from God but his own opinion.  Not everything that a prophet writes in a letter has ever been claimed as all coming from God. Paul himself never made that claim.  Yet there are those who find one sentence in those letters and make the claim THAT sentence came from God, but the following sentence is not from God because we don't want to believe it as such.  Hence, women wear make-up, gold jewelry, preach and pray in church don't have to cover their hair etc.  But we do fully believe the part where Paul comes out against homosexuality.  Now tell me, why is one doctrine and not the other?  Either they are both JUST Paul writing his own opinions or ALL of Paul's writings are revelations from God.  It is the members of the church that want it both ways, not me.  I personally think that ALL of Paul's letters are just that, letters written by Paul giving his best advice at the time he wrote them.  And like all advice a person receives, we should follow that part that enhances and strengthens us.  

 

Unfortunately it is the members of the church that are the ones that "wrestle" with the scriptures, deciding one (forbidding to marry) does not apply to the church, while trying to reconcile the churches own stance on forbidding to marry.  Deciding it is ok to wear gold jewelry, but homosexuality is a sin.

 

No SSM has been sanctioned by God.  True.  No SSM has been condemned by God.  True.  "It is not good for Man to be alone" came from the mouth of God.  True.  The law of Chastity consists of only sex within the bonds of legal marriage. True.  The plan of salvation is for all of God's children. True.  Gays not allowed to marry.  Never said that.

[canard78]

I think you are helping me prove my point here. I don't be equate racial prejudice with disagreement over the morality of same-sex marriage. Thus, I think any appeals to racial bigotry in the past are completely irrelevant to the current issue of same sex marriage.

 

What about when Prophets speak against inter-racial marriage as a moral issue? A 20thC prophet says the following (first presidency statement under George Albert Smith):

 

...your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now. God’s rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous... We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this area, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.

 

(emphasis added)

 

So were they teaching a true principle, representing God's will - in spite of the social attitudes of the day? Were they standing for the true standard of marriage and supporting the eternal plan? 

 

Were those adcovating inter-racial marriage simply following the devil?

[canard78]

I love how the same lack of revelation argument keeps being used. You attempt to win the day by setting false criteria for revelation. The prophet does not have to say, "thus sayeth the Lord," for the words to be the divine in origin. You need to gain a stronger grasp on revelation, what it is, what it looks like, what it sounds like and how it is received. You clearly do not understand God's methods for revealing truth. Revelation rarely comes in large, dramatic heavenly pronouncements. The first vision was one form of revelation. The all worthy men was another. The idea to develop city creek was a third. Each revelations. Each valid communications to further and protect God's work. Your setting a condition that the prophets must come out and say, on December 21st of this year we received the following revelation... This is a false condition and nowhere in Mormon or ancient theology is this a requirement for a divine proclamation.

 

The only reason I can see for trying to establish this false condition is for personal justification.

 

President Lee said:

 

"If it is not in the standard works, you may well assume that it is speculation. It is man's own personal opinion, to put it another way; and if it contradicts what is in the scriptures, you may know by that same token that it is not true. This is the standard by which you measure all truth. But if you do not know the standards, you have no adequate measure of truth." Clyde J. Williams, ed., Teachings of Harold B. Lee, Eleventh President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996), 149.

 

[teddyaware]

The two don't sound at all similar to me. Please explain what is so amazingly similar.

Knowing my first post might be met with some skepticism, I saved the best rhetorical ammo for last. Now read the second half of Korihor's Anti-Christ diatribe and tell me if you still don't think Porter Rockwell's philosophy sounds a lot like Korihor's:

22 And it came to pass that the high priest said unto him: Why do ye go about perverting the ways of the Lord? Why do ye teach this people that there shall be no Christ, to interrupt their rejoicings? Why do ye speak against all the prophecies of the holy prophets?

23 Now the high priest’s name was Giddonah. And Korihor said unto him: Because I do not teach the foolish traditions of your fathers, and because I do not teach this people to bind themselves down under the foolish ordinances and performances which are laid down by ancient priests, to usurp power and authority over them, to keep them in ignorance, that they may not lift up their heads, but be brought down according to thy words.

24 Ye say that this people is a free people. Behold, I say they are in bondage. Ye say that those ancient prophecies are true. Behold, I say that ye do not know that they are true.

25 Ye say that this people is a guilty and a fallen people, because of the transgression of a parent. Behold, I say that a child is not guilty because of its parents.

26 And ye also say that Christ shall come. But behold, I say that ye do not know that there shall be a Christ. And ye say also that he shall be slain for the sins of the world—

27 And thus ye lead away this people after the foolish traditions of your fathers, and according to your own desires; and ye keep them down, even as it were in bondage, that ye may glut yourselves with the labors of their hands, that they durst not look up with boldness, and that they durst not enjoy their rights and privileges.

28 Yea, they durst not make use of that which is their own lest they should offend their priests, who do yoke them according to their desires, and have brought them to believe, by their traditions and theirdreams and their whims and their visions and their pretended mysteries, that they should, if they did not do according to their words, offend some unknown being, who they say is God—a being who never has been seen or known, who never was nor ever will be. (Alma 30)

 

Edited May 10, 2014 by teddyaware

[Mystery Meat]

Yes I fail to recognize God's definition of marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman because He has never declared that is His definition.  If you can find such a definition from God, now would be the time to speak up.

 

I recommend that you go and read the Proclamation to the World. There you will find a definition of marriage. The brethren, as recently as this past Sunday, have declared its divine origins.

 

Edited to add that the prophets declaring the divine origins of the Proclamation might as well be a, Thus sayeth the Lord. Some will disagree I am sure. But you will of course note the context in when the Proclamation came out. It was at the early stages of the battle of SSM. A family member of mine was involved in trying to keep SSM off the books around this time in Hawaii. So the brethren and the Lord had this issue in mind when the document was produced. If the Lord wanted to add SS relationships to the definition of marriage, he could and would have done so.

Edited May 10, 2014 by lvjd66

[Mystery Meat]

What about when Prophets speak against inter-racial marriage as a moral issue? A 20thC prophet says the following (first presidency statement under George Albert Smith):

 

(emphasis added)

 

So were they teaching a true principle, representing God's will - in spite of the social attitudes of the day? Were they standing for the true standard of marriage and supporting the eternal plan? 

 

Were those adcovating inter-racial marriage simply following the devil?

 

Again, you are helping to prove my point. Satan has done an excellent job deceiving many into comparing racism and its evils with defending God's law of marriage. They are not the same thing and do not belong in the same discussion.

[Mystery Meat]

President Lee said:

 

That is a very good quote from President Lee. Here is what he said before the part you quoted above:

 

 

 

All that we teach in this Church ought to be couched in the scriptures. … We ought to choose our texts from the scriptures, and wherever you have an illustration in the scriptures or a revelation in the Book of Mormon, use it, and do not draw from other sources where you can find it here in these books. We call these the standard Church works because they are standard. If you want to measure truth, measure it by the four standard Church works...

 

Thank you for providing this quote. It helps me prove my point.

[Ahab]

What about when Prophets speak against inter-racial marriage as a moral issue? A 20thC prophet says the following (first presidency statement under George Albert Smith):

(emphasis added)

So were they teaching a true principle, representing God's will - in spite of the social attitudes of the day? Were they standing for the true standard of marriage and supporting the eternal plan?

Were those adcovating inter-racial marriage simply following the devil?

You left out a question:

Were those men who speak as prophets of God, when they are acting as prophets of God, given the keys of the kingdom of God so that whatever they said or did was binding on Earth as well as in heaven?

Oh, and one more:

Were those men who were speaking as Presidents of the Church entitled to regulate the kingdom of God on Earth as they saw was proper back then?

Let me know if you'd like some help with the answers.

[Mystery Meat]

President Lee said:

 

So canard, I am sure since you provided the quote from President Lee, you would be interested to hear the rest of what President Lee had to say about scriptures. I pulled out my copy of the teachings of President Lee and this proceeds it:

 

 

Some people get the idea that the only scripture we have in the Church today is that which is contained in the four standard Church works. Now, the Lord in a revelation has spoken of something else [which He] defined [as] scripture. I read from the sixty-eigth section of the D&C. This was a a revelation given through the Prophet Joseph Smith. [The Lord] said this: "And, behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth--and this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. 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.

 

I think also of value to this thread is the following quote from President Lee (emphasis added):

 

 

We have the standard Church works. Why do we call them standard? If there is any teacher who teaches a doctrine that can't be substantiated from standard Church works--and I make one qualification, and that is unless that one be the President of the Church, who alone has the right to declare new doctrine--then you may know by that same token that such a teacher is but expressing his own opinion. If, on the other hand, you have someone teaching a doctrine that cannot be substantiated by the scriptures, and more than that, if it contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know that that person is teaching false doctrine, no matter what his position in this church may be. The President of the Church alone may declare the mind and will of God to His people. No officer nor any other church in the world has this high and lofty prerogative. When the President proclaims any such new doctrine, he will declare it to be revelation from the Lord.

 

I find these quotes fascinating and have shed some new knowledge upon my mind. Thank you for sparking my curiosity and sending me to the source. I find it interesting that he does not use scripture and standard Church works interchangeably. Rather the standard Church works are one form of scripture.  Furthermore, there is one person and one person only who can declare new doctrine: the President of the Church. Furthermore, if it contradicts scripture and what is in the standard Church works it is false doctrine no matter what his position in this church may be (I am not sure he is including the President of the Church here, but I think that is what he is suggesting but the proceeding and following sentences seem to contradict that a bit).

 

Taking all of that as a whole and applying it to the discussion here, I think it is clear that ONLY the President of the Church could reveal the new doctrine of SSM, and it would clearly be a new doctrine. Furthermore, we know that the current teaching is rooted in scripture (using the Lord's definition as quoted from D&C above): passages in the Bible, the Proclamation, and other inspired statements of the Prophet(s). I am not sure that a new revelation on the matter is possible depending on how you read and understand the quote from President Lee above. But if there was going to be one it would have to be from the Prophet. Teaching anything to the contrary (that God endorses SSM) is at best opinion, and at worst (what I personally believe) false doctrine, as I believe it contradicts scripture.

 

Interestingly, using Elder Lee's quotes as a basis, I think it is very easy to distinguish between the priesthood ban, inter-racial marriage, and SSM. 

Edited May 10, 2014 by lvjd66

[Mystery Meat]

Actually if it is a revelation from God, why does it require a consensus from anyone else?  I would say that if the prophet received a revelation, having the 12 approve of such a revelation before declaring as such is a bit presumptuous don't you think?  Did Joseph  need to gather a group of men to declare that the Father and the Son appeared to him in a grove of trees?  Did a group of men need to agree that Joseph's 76 section of the Doctrine & Covenants came from God?  It all comes down to this.  Do we have a prophet, seer and revelator who speaks with God or not?  If the prophet does indeed receive revelation why isn't he willing to declare it as such?  Why is there any need at all to have these debates about whether something is a revelation or not.  The only time it would be difficult to say "Thus sayeth the Lord" is if in fact, the Lord did not say it.  If God did not say it, the doctrine should really read "Thus sayeth the leaders of the church that this is their best guess at this time what God wants us to do"  

 

I wanted to reply to this portion individually to make sure you saw it. I admit, after reading the above quotes from President Lee that I was in part wrong. I am not above that. President Lee said:

 

 

The President of the Church alone may declare the mind and will of God to His people. . . When the President proclaims any such new doctrine, he will declare it to be a revelation from the Lord.

 

Alas, contrary to what I said it appears there are cases where the Prophet should and must declare, "Thus Sayeth the Lord." But I note that those circumstances are limited to the unveiling of new doctrine. SSM would be such a new doctrine. As it stands, and based on President Lee's (not to mention the Lord's) definition of scripture such a declaration is not mandated to declare SSM is in violation of God's plan. Nor does the Prophet need to say it when asking us to be better hometeachers, tithe payers, or sabbath observers. Such invitations can be given, along with that to obey the revealed law of Chastity, and when it is the Prophet who says it, we should assume that the President of the Church is speaking for the Lord without having the President of the Church be forced to say, "Thus Sayeth the Lord."

 

But I do apologize for my statement which was clearly too broad.

[teddyaware]

I wanted to reply to this portion individually to make sure you saw it. I admit, after reading the above quotes from President Lee that I was in part wrong. I am not above that. President Lee said:

 

 

Alas, contrary to what I said it appears there are cases where the Prophet should and must declare, "Thus Sayeth the Lord." But I note that those circumstances are limited to the unveiling of new doctrine. SSM would be such a new doctrine. As it stands, and based on President Lee's (not to mention the Lord's) definition of scripture such a declaration is not mandated to declare SSM is in violation of God's plan. Nor does the Prophet need to say it when asking us to be better hometeachers, tithe payers, or sabbath observers. Such invitations can be given, along with that to obey the revealed law of Chastity, and when it is the Prophet who says it, we should assume that the President of the Church is speaking for the Lord without having the President of the Church be forced to say, "Thus Sayeth the Lord."

 

But I do apologize for my statement which was clearly too broad.

When in General Conference a member of the First Presidency or members of the Quorum of the Twelve end their addresses by saying "in the name of Jesus Christ," is that not just the same as saying "thus saith the Lord?"

Edited May 10, 2014 by teddyaware

[Mystery Meat]

When in General Conference a member of the First Presidency or members of the Quorum of the Twelve end their addresses by saying "in the name of Jesus Christ," is that not just the same as saying "thus saith the Lord?"

 

Very excellent point.

[canard78]

Again, you are helping to prove my point. Satan has done an excellent job deceiving many into comparing racism and its evils with defending God's law of marriage. They are not the same thing and do not belong in the same discussion.

 

Not at all. Our prophets have, in the past, tried to teach God's law of marriage. They taught that inter-racial marriage was against God's law of marriage. They were wrong.

 

This is not about racism and instead about whether the prophets can always be reliable when teaching God's law of marriage. Given they are demonstrably wrong on the inter-racial marriage count, why are you certain that they are right on this count?

[Mystery Meat]

Not at all. Our prophets have, in the past, tried to teach God's law of marriage. They taught that inter-racial marriage was against God's law of marriage. They were wrong.

 

This is not about racism and instead about whether the prophets can always be reliable when teaching God's law of marriage. Given they are demonstrably wrong on the inter-racial marriage count, why are you certain that they are right on this count?

 

Read the extended quotes from President Lee and you will have your answer.

[canard78]

When in General Conference a member of the First Presidency or members of the Quorum of the Twelve end their addresses by saying "in the name of Jesus Christ," is that not just the same as saying "thus saith the Lord?"

 

No. When I end my talk saying the same, does it mean the same? Not in the slightest. Can you find me any reference or statement, other than your own assumptions, that conflates the two?

[canard78]

Read the extended quotes from President Lee and you will have your answer.

 

That's not an answer, that's a dodge. If you feel you have an answer then specify the quote.

[Mystery Meat]

That's not an answer, that's a dodge. If you feel you have an answer then specify the quote.

 

It is not a dodge in the slightest. I answered your question in the above posts. How much scriptural precedence can you find for the banning of inter-racial marriage? How much scriptural precedence can you find for the condemnation of homosexuality in general? How much support can you find in scripture for the idea that God condones two men or two women marrying each other? None. That answers your question.