Do Our Ward And Stake Leaders Recognize The Room They Have To Include?

[rockpond]

So it's not something that's worth worrying about until the federal judiciary gets heavy-handed about it, then suddenly, the law of chastity needs to be repealed?

Elder Nelson was right.

Nice spin, Scott, but not at all what I said. And I certainly didn't wait for the federal judiciary to act before I began advocating for marriage equality.

Let's try this example: the plates sat buried in the ground for 1,400 years... Were they just not worth worrying about until the 19th century? Of course not... A soul had to be prepared. A people and environment had to be readied. A question had to be asked.

How would I have hoped for marriage equality before I even knew of a gay couple seeking marriage? My beliefs about homosexuality and its place in God's plan has nothing to do with legislation or judicial processes.

P.S. Since you and others keep mentioning it: I have never suggested that the law of chastity be repealed.

Edited January 9, 2015 by rockpond

[Rob Osborn]

No which is why I am not attending your church.  And it does become your church when you start to decide who gets to go and who does not.

 

Like many, my relationship between me and God is not dependent on whether I am allowed to attend your church service.  Yes I have sins. I have long ago been willing to accept the judgement of God for those sins.  His judgement is the ONLY judgement that I care about.  I am not seeking your approval for the choice I have made nor any other person.  I am not even seeking the approval of of God for my weaknesses.  He can judge me as He sees fit. 

 

When your church decides to not allow me to attend because of my sins, then it is time to find another way to connect with God.  Just because I have sins does not mean that I should abandon God.

Then why even complain on this board?

You dont want to change, and also dont want to attend church but still want to complain about us...

You can always connect with God- that line of communication is always open- you just have to pray. But you cant just sit there and complain about us when you put forth no effort to change and dont want to change. Start your own church if you want religion but not ours.

[rockpond]

Then why even complain on this board?

You dont want to change, and also dont want to attend church but still want to complain about us...

You can always connect with God- that line of communication is always open- you just have to pray. But you cant just sit there and complain about us when you put forth no effort to change and dont want to change. Start your own church if you want religion but not ours.

For the record, I'm a member in good standing and I don't share in your opinions. I want CB and his partner in the pew next to me and my family.

[DBMormon]

Many of those things are law of Moses items that were specific to that.  The Law of Chastity has been around since day 1 and will be present on the last day. 

But whether God changes individual laws or the who paradigm of them, he still changes them.... we sooner or later have to be comfortable validating a correct thought even if it is not our own.  God while unchanging, changes a lot

[DBMormon]

 I know what group I will go with if such a thing was to ever occur. 

You'll either go with the top 15 men or you will be a nonmember

Edited January 9, 2015 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

I believe they are sincere, but the simple fact is they do not have authority to say "never." President Woodruff was not bound by prior statements (including his own) that polygamy would never be renounced. President Kimball and the Q12 in 1978 were not bound by prior statements (including by members of the Q12) that blacks would never receive the priesthood until all non-blacks had a chance to receive it. And future leaders will not be bound by what our current leaders say, no matter how well intentioned.  

Amen Buckeye... 

PS... go Bucks!

[DBMormon]

It's pretty obvious that the vain hope that the Lord's servants will one day declare unsinful that which is sinful and even sanctify it in our temples has been driven by society's very recent legalization of the redefinition of marriage.

birth control was sinful now it is left to couple to decide

Being gay alone was sinful , though not any longer

being with a menstruating women was sinful, haven't heard anything about that in a few thousand years

being unwilling to accept polygamy was sinful, now the church seems to take the other view.

Cremation was warned against - now it is up to a family to decide

playing cards were sinful.... now not so much

things change as we realize we didn't know what we thought we knew in the way we thought we knew it.

[DBMormon]

I do not see how it is possible to "see the good" that can come from homosexual relationships. Perhaps this is the paramount point where we differ and will never see eye to eye.

I have my own sins and imperfections I am trying overcome- thats why I go to church. If active homosexuals come to church and want to repent, then church will be good for them. If they want to come but wish to remain in their relationships and expect others to accept them, it isnt going to work.

assume for a moment that we as a church are wrong about God's personal view of homosexuality.   what is it that you can not see as good.  What makes homosexuality evil or destructive to society?  What would be the future results in terms of society?

[Rob Osborn]

assume for a moment that we as a church are wrong about God's personal view of homosexuality.   what is it that you can not see as good.  What makes homosexuality evil or destructive to society?  What would be the future results in terms of society?

I am not going to assume the impossible. God is not wrong in His laws condemning homosexual behavior. As such, a relationship that runs counter to Gods plans for His children cannot produce good fruit. Its a tree that yields bad fruit (never leads to true happiness in the eternities). Homosexual behavior is extremely destructive to society, especially to raising Gods children He sends here to this earth. Statistics have shown that children raised in traditional families fare much much better in every aspect of life. Besides that, our prophets teach us that truth as revealed from God Himself, so why are we even debating this? It sounds to me like you are in disagreement with the Proclamation to the World on the Family and the prophets and teachings themselves. We are already seeing the fruits of an immoral society.

[california boy]

Then why even complain on this board?

You dont want to change, and also dont want to attend church but still want to complain about us...

You can always connect with God- that line of communication is always open- you just have to pray. But you cant just sit there and complain about us when you put forth no effort to change and dont want to change. Start your own church if you want religion but not ours.

 

Oh Rob, what are we to do with you.  This is not your church.  This is the church of Jesus Christ.  It is not your church to decide what sinners should be allowed in and what sinners should be barred at the gate.  This gay man has a brother that is an apostle of Jesus Christ.  I am pretty sure that this apostle knows that his brother and boyfriend are attending church.  Yet this apostle has not contacted the bishop and told him to bar the doors from this sinner.  In what universe do you think it would be your responsibility over an apostle that it is you who should decide to not allow this gay man or any gay man from attending God's church??

 

And now you want to monitor who posts on this discussion board? Really?  I post and read what is posted because I am interested in other peoples ideas whether I agree with them or not.  

 

I have never complained about the church.  I have always maintained that the church can do and teach whatever it wants. That doesn't mean it is always the will of God as we have learned from past teachings.  I am only pointing out that not allowing all of God's children the blessings of temple marriage may also be against God's will.  We have no revelation on this subject.  I am only pointing out that the law of chastity has always been no sexual relations outside of marriage.  I am only pointing out that for the first time, the church is demanding celibacy within married couples.  And they justify that simply because they are gay??

[DBMormon]

I am not going to assume the impossible. God is not wrong in His laws condemning homosexual behavior. As such, a relationship that runs counter to Gods plans for His children cannot produce good fruit. Its a tree that yields bad fruit (never leads to true happiness in the eternities). Homosexual behavior is extremely destructive to society, especially to raising Gods children He sends here to this earth. Statistics have shown that children raised in traditional families fare much much better in every aspect of life. Besides that, our prophets teach us that truth as revealed from God Himself, so why are we even debating this? It sounds to me like you are in disagreement with the Proclamation to the World on the Family and the prophets and teachings themselves. We are already seeing the fruits of an immoral society.

 

I assumed this would be your response.... simply "I won't talk in impossible hypotheticals"  but this same answer could have easily been given by you in 1975 about the race issue with the limited understanding you and general membership had or didn't have about conversations taking place behind the scenes (hindsight being 20/20 is a marvelous thing.  Prophets have said lots of things and taught them as Doctrine (truth coming from God) only to have us change views later.  (Adam is god, birth control, cremation, race theories, oral sex, Lectures on faith as scripture then removed from cannon, interracial marriage as sin, blood atonement, gay being a choice, etc....) <---- each of these were taught as sin or having bearing on salvation if violated or as revealed truth. Some of these were even approved by all 15 at one time only to have a reversal (lecture on faith and blacks being cursed) they can be seen as at one time Doctrinal truth or prophetic counsel. And I could name 500 things that have changed in terms of our assumptions outside these.  

 

It would have been easy for you to assume in 1975 that the Lord had spoken and the Doctrine was set and there was no room to change.  Only to have Elder McConkie apologize for what he and a host of other leaders had said prior painting us into a corner theoligically and yet what God spoke erased all of that.  As Elder Christofferson said, Revelation can correct Doctrinal deviations.  To have a Doctrinal deviation, one must have something that is thought to be true and thought to have come from God only to find out it didn't. 

 

The defense here is to point at scripture and say this teaching is clearly taught throughout scripture and hence is more sure than those mentioned above.  Fine.  But since I don't take the view that scripture is 100% the mind and will of God, (neither did Brigham Young for that matter)  I am not bound to scripture as perfect truth.  I am comfortable realizing that in the past they did the best they could with what they knew and saw and heard and that it wasn't perfect.  I am not bound to scripture as defining absolute truth completely and perfectly.

 

Also What I would prefer to see is Christ address the issue personally.  He doesn't.  Yet he had opportunity to do so which I find intriguing

 

Mathew 19:10-12  Jesus just gets finished teaching about divorce.  He talks about how bad it is to do so and his apostles follow up with a question

 

His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

 

 

In other words they take the leap to other side of the black and white coin...  If this is a problem then we should not marry at all!

 

They are referring to Jesus statement in verse 8 = 

Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.  From the beginning it was not so that a man would put away his wife.

 

 They are pushing back in linear thinking against Christ's condemnation of divorce

 

Then the savior answers them

 

But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

 

 

What saying?  What can not all men receive?  To which men is it given?  Why are some men given the law and other men are not?

The assumption here is to assume he is speaking of divorce and that divorce is permissible because some can not live the law as it was first given.

But then Christ follows up with an exception that seems to have little to do with the that interpretation.

 

 

 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from theirmother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

 

Christ seems to then say, look some are born, some choose, and some are made into one who does not have/seek out an attraction to the opposite gender.  

 

Is it possible that the

"All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

 

 

is meant to mean that those who are not attracted to the opposite gender are the one who are not "given" these teachings on marriage?

I think there is indeed room for further light and knowledge.

 

At a minimum, here was a perfect chance for Christ himself to lecture on homosexuality or non traditionally-straight people and to lay down the rule and Doctrine and law.... he seems to rise above that issue completely almost as if he was hinting at something others could not quite grasp at when he says

 

He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

 

 

I am not saying this is a Doctrinal deviation or that my understanding of one possible interpretation is the correct one, only that it is in my mind, our present belief as a Church, just as as Blacks being cursed and interracial marriage being sin or Adam being God..... is possibly wrong.

Edited January 9, 2015 by DBMormon

[Rob Osborn]

I assumed this would be your response.... simply "I won't talk in impossible hypotheticals"  but this same answer could have easily been given by you in 1975 about the race issue with the limited understanding you and general membership had or didn't have about conversations taking place behind the scenes (hindsight being 20/20 is a marvelous thing.  Prophets have said lots of things and taught them as Doctrine (truth coming from God) only to have us change views later.  (Adam is god, birth control, cremation, race theories, oral sex, Lectures on faith as scripture then removed from cannon, interracial marriage as sin, blood atonement, gay being a choice, etc....) <---- each of these were taught as sin or having bearing on salvation if violated or as revealed truth. Some of these were even approved by all 15 at one time only to have a reversal (lecture on faith and blacks being cursed) they can be seen as at one time Doctrinal truth or prophetic counsel. And I could name 500 things that have changed in terms of our assumptions outside these.  

 

It would have been easy for you to assume in 1975 that the Lord had spoken and the Doctrine was set and there was no room to change.  Only to have Elder McConkie apologize for what he and a host of other leaders had said prior painting us into a corner theoligically and yet what God spoke erased all of that.  As Elder Christofferson said, Revelation can correct Doctrinal deviations.  To have a Doctrinal deviation, one must have something that is thought to be true and thought to have come from God only to find out it didn't. 

 

The defense here is to point at scripture and say this teaching is clearly taught throughout scripture and hence is more sure than those mentioned above.  Fine.  But since I don't take the view that scripture is 100% the mind and will of God, (neither did Brigham Young for that matter)  I am not bound to scripture as perfect truth.  I am comfortable realizing that in the past they did the best they could with what they knew and saw and heard and that it wasn't perfect.  I am not bound to scripture as defining absolute truth completely and perfectly.

 

Also What I would prefer to see is Christ address the issue personally.  He doesn't.  Yet he had opportunity to do so which I find intriguing

 

Mathew 19:10-12  Jesus just gets finished teaching about divorce.  He talks about how bad it is to do so and his apostles follow up with a question

 

 

In other words they take the leap to other side of the black and white coin...  If this is a problem then we should not marry at all!

 

They are referring to Jesus statement in verse 8 = 

 They are pushing back in linear thinking against Christ's condemnation of divorce

 

Then the savior answers them

 

 

What saying?  What can not all men receive?  To which men is it given?  Why are some men given the law and other men are not?

The assumption here is to assume he is speaking of divorce and that divorce is permissible because some can not live the law as it was first given.

But then Christ follows up with an exception that seems to have little to do with the that interpretation.

 

 

Christ seems to then say, look some are born, some choose, and some are made into one who does not have/seek out an attraction to the opposite gender.  

 

Is it possible that the

 

is meant to mean that those who are not attracted to the opposite gender are the one who are not "given" these teachings on marriage?

I think there is indeed room for further light and knowledge.

 

At a minimum, here was a perfect chance for Christ himself to lecture on homosexuality or non traditionally-straight people and to lay down the rule and Doctrine and law.... he seems to rise above that issue completely almost as if he was hinting at something others could not quite grasp at when he says

 

I am not saying this is a Doctrinal deviation or that my understanding of one possible interpretation is the correct one, only that it is in my mind, our present belief as a Church, just as as Blacks being cursed and interracial marriage being sin or Adam being God..... is possibly wrong.

Well, dont get your hopes up. I would also be very careful about how you teach this doctrine at church because it runs opposite of the plan.

[Rob Osborn]

Oh Rob, what are we to do with you.  This is not your church.  This is the church of Jesus Christ.  It is not your church to decide what sinners should be allowed in and what sinners should be barred at the gate.  This gay man has a brother that is an apostle of Jesus Christ.  I am pretty sure that this apostle knows that his brother and boyfriend are attending church.  Yet this apostle has not contacted the bishop and told him to bar the doors from this sinner.  In what universe do you think it would be your responsibility over an apostle that it is you who should decide to not allow this gay man or any gay man from attending God's church??

 

And now you want to monitor who posts on this discussion board? Really?  I post and read what is posted because I am interested in other peoples ideas whether I agree with them or not.  

 

I have never complained about the church.  I have always maintained that the church can do and teach whatever it wants. That doesn't mean it is always the will of God as we have learned from past teachings.  I am only pointing out that not allowing all of God's children the blessings of temple marriage may also be against God's will.  We have no revelation on this subject.  I am only pointing out that the law of chastity has always been no sexual relations outside of marriage.  I am only pointing out that for the first time, the church is demanding celibacy within married couples.  And they justify that simply because they are gay??

Your ideology is so completely off fromwhat God wants. You consistantly refuse to acknowledge that we have received a lot of revelation on the family and the nature of God. Homosexuality is not part of godliness.

[DBMormon]

Your ideology is so completely off fromwhat God wants. You consistantly refuse to acknowledge that we have received a lot of revelation on the family and the nature of God. Homosexuality is not part of godliness.

I simply don't agree with you on this.  Revelation on the family?  are you speaking of the proclamation?  If so I don't see that as revelation and even if it is, it is missing lots of exceptions like hermaphrodites and transgendered people.  So it is not complete.

 

What other revelation on families are you speaking of?  Do we know on any source whether it is revelation from God or the opinion of man?  Even on some revelations Joseph proclaimed he admitted later some revelations are thought to come from God but that Satan is actually the author of them, even those received by prophets like himself. 

Edited January 9, 2015 by DBMormon

[HappyJackWagon]

Well, dont get your hopes up. I would also be very careful about how you teach this doctrine at church because it runs opposite of the plan.

Which doctrine? Prophetic fallibility? The fallibiliity of scripture? Continuing revelation?

I think all these positions which DBM has taken are the only responsible teachings and are the official church positions. DBM is only extrapolating out into a specific example.

 

It's hard to claim any absolute, unchanging truth when we know prophets, and therefore scriptures can be in error and that future revelation could correct those errors.

[DBMormon]

It's hard to claim any absolute, unchanging truth when we know prophets, and therefore scriptures can be in error and that future revelation could correct those errors.

and when the Church has made mistakes in the past with naming false theories as divine doctrine and admits doing so.  In reality outside the Doctrine of Christ and the ordinances (and even ordinances and covenants change - Ex: temple changes) there is very little in the church that can not be easily altered with a revelation.

[Mars]

I think you're reaching, DBMormon.

 

To my knowledge:

 

- Temple changes have been about implementation and not ordinances given nor covenants made.

 

- Doctrinal shifts have not, to my knowledge, altered the fundamental ordinances they have taught about.

 

- We have changed a variety of practices and beliefs for a variety of reasons, but I have yet to read about a change that altered the Plan of Salvation.  The closest one I can think of is the idea that early Saints felt that Polygamous Marriage was synonymous with Eternal Marriage, and one could not do the one without the other.  Even then, the point of marriage being the sealing power to raise the next generation in righteousness didn't change.

 

It may be that at some future point we change and allow gay men and women to be sealed to their partner and experience romance strictly within those bonds and retain full membership in the Church, but I believe that would fundamentally alter the Plan of Salvation and the point of it all.  So I don't think it'll happen.  But that's me.

[Bob Crockett]

and when the Church has made mistakes in the past with naming false theories as divine doctrine and admits doing so.  In reality outside the Doctrine of Christ and the ordinances (and even ordinances and covenants change - Ex: temple changes) there is very little in the church that can not be easily altered with a revelation.

You have a tortured and proof-texted view of "the Doctrine of Christ."

 

How compelling an argument is it that the church's historical stance against homosexuality is likely to be overturned because the Church changed some completely unrelated doctrine?

[DBMormon]

I think you're reaching, DBMormon.

 

To my knowledge:

 

- Temple changes have been about implementation and not ordinances given nor covenants made.

 

- Doctrinal shifts have not, to my knowledge, altered the fundamental ordinances they have taught about.

 

- We have changed a variety of practices and beliefs for a variety of reasons, but I have yet to read about a change that altered the Plan of Salvation.  The closest one I can think of is the idea that early Saints felt that Polygamous Marriage was synonymous with Eternal Marriage, and one could not do the one without the other.  Even then, the point of marriage being the sealing power to raise the next generation in righteousness didn't change.

 

It may be that at some future point we change and allow gay men and women to be sealed to their partner and experience romance strictly within those bonds and retain full membership in the Church, but I believe that would fundamentally alter the Plan of Salvation and the point of it all.  So I don't think it'll happen.  But that's me.

 

 

You have a tortured and proof-texted view of "the Doctrine of Christ."

 

How compelling an argument is it that the church's historical stance against homosexuality is likely to be overturned because the Church changed some completely unrelated doctrine?

 

Isn't it wonderful how we all see the world differently.  Good luck.

[Mars]

I am having a hard time reading that without getting wet from all the sarcasm.

[HappyJackWagon]

I think you're reaching, DBMormon.

 

To my knowledge:

 

- Temple changes have been about implementation and not ordinances given nor covenants made.

 

- Doctrinal shifts have not, to my knowledge, altered the fundamental ordinances they have taught about.

 

- We have changed a variety of practices and beliefs for a variety of reasons, but I have yet to read about a change that altered the Plan of Salvation.  The closest one I can think of is the idea that early Saints felt that Polygamous Marriage was synonymous with Eternal Marriage, and one could not do the one without the other.  Even then, the point of marriage being the sealing power to raise the next generation in righteousness didn't change.

 

It may be that at some future point we change and allow gay men and women to be sealed to their partner and experience romance strictly within those bonds and retain full membership in the Church, but I believe that would fundamentally alter the Plan of Salvation and the point of it all.  So I don't think it'll happen.  But that's me.

There have been many changes in the temple, from signs, tokens, names, penalties, Adam/God taught at the veil. These are significant changes.

 

Can you explain why acceptance of Gay marriage would alter the plan of salvation?

My guess is at least part of your answer will suppose a  similarity between procreation in this world and the process for creating spirit children in the next. Maybe it's the same but maybe it's not. Do we know for sure? God, Jesus and Adam (3 men) are responsible for creating the universe and everything in it, including men and women. This would indicate to me that there are other processes for creation that we don't know OR others participated in the creation (women) that we're not told about.

[Mars]

There have been many changes in the temple, from signs, tokens, names, penalties, Adam/God taught at the veil. These are significant changes.

 

Can you explain why acceptance of Gay marriage would alter the plan of salvation?

My guess is at least part of your answer will suppose a  similarity between procreation in this world and the process for creating spirit children in the next. Maybe it's the same but maybe it's not. Do we know for sure? God, Jesus and Adam (3 men) are responsible for creating the universe and everything in it, including men and women. This would indicate to me that there are other processes for creation that we don't know OR others participated in the creation (women) that we're not told about.

 

I understand that the Temple has undergone changes.  The form has changed quite a bit.  The ordinances given?  Covenants made?  I'm not aware of changes that cut that deep.

 

As for my explanation - you already had an answer ready for what you thought I was gonna say.  I don't really want to play Stump the Chump, but whatever.  The way I understand the Gospel, the rule is to start with faith and end with an improved understanding of the nature of God and His relationship to us, and a heart fully turned to Him.  The family appears to me to be the primary vehicle where those principles are taught and enacted.  You were correct on this point when you mentioned 'procreation,' but you already have your own conclusions based on questions you have, and why it's not a suitable foundation upon which to base an opinion such as mine.  Exceptions to the rule, such as 'what do we do with people who don't fit the mold' - I sure don't have the answers to every single variation and special case.  I know what the general rule is, and when someone dearly needs my judgment beyond message board argument fodder about what to do, I'll give it in earnest.  Until then, there it is.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Mars

[Buckeye]

I think you're reaching, DBMormon.

 

To my knowledge:

 

- Temple changes have been about implementation and not ordinances given nor covenants made.

 

- Doctrinal shifts have not, to my knowledge, altered the fundamental ordinances they have taught about.

 

- We have changed a variety of practices and beliefs for a variety of reasons, but I have yet to read about a change that altered the Plan of Salvation.  The closest one I can think of is the idea that early Saints felt that Polygamous Marriage was synonymous with Eternal Marriage, and one could not do the one without the other.  Even then, the point of marriage being the sealing power to raise the next generation in righteousness didn't change.

 

It may be that at some future point we change and allow gay men and women to be sealed to their partner and experience romance strictly within those bonds and retain full membership in the Church, but I believe that would fundamentally alter the Plan of Salvation and the point of it all.  So I don't think it'll happen.  But that's me.

 

Hey Mars, we could go to lengths discussing historical changes to ordinances/teachings/etc and where the line is for "fundamental" changes to the plan of salvation, but it probably would get us nowhere.

 

Take for example the sacrament, which since it was originally instituted by Joseph has been changed to replace wine with water, replace a communal cup with individual cups, allow participation by 12 year old boys rather than adults, and switched to priests praying with arms folder rather than stretched up high.  Could additional changes could be made without fundamentally altering the ordinance? What if we performed the ordinance monthly rather than weekly (as do the CoC)? What if we allowed women to officiate - at least to pass the sacrament which scripturally does not require any priesthood office (see D/C 20)? What if we added wording to the prayer such that we covenant to bear one another's burdens (in accordance with Mosiah ? Where is the line for a fundamental change? We unlikely to agree. Well, at least for anything short of changing the references to Christ to now refer to Lucifer.

 

So let's put that to the side and focus on the heart of the plan of salvation, which is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man (Moses 1:37). Recognizing gay marriage would not affect the immortality part, as our doctrine is that such a gift is already guaranteed based off of our prior actions and the existing atonement. So the issue is eternal life. Can a SSM couple have eternal increase? That's the real issue.

 

IMO, if increase requires biological reproduction, and if such reproduction works the same in the next life as here, then I can see how it's arguably incompatible. But what if increase does not require reproduction? What if Sheri Dew is correct in teaching that motherhood (and by extension fatherhood) is the nature of who we are and not dependent on sex? What if heterosexual couples who adopt in this life are allowed to view those children as part of their eternal increase? (actually, this is already the case; they can be sealed) What if SSM couples who adopt are allowed the same privilege for their children? Well, then I can see a path whereby eternal increase is available to SS couples. The key to all of this, again IMO, is the Savior, who we view as our father but not because of any sexual reproduction.

[Rob Osborn]

I simply don't agree with you on this.  Revelation on the family?  are you speaking of the proclamation?  If so I don't see that as revelation and even if it is, it is missing lots of exceptions like hermaphrodites and transgendered people.  So it is not complete.

 

What other revelation on families are you speaking of?  Do we know on any source whether it is revelation from God or the opinion of man?  Even on some revelations Joseph proclaimed he admitted later some revelations are thought to come from God but that Satan is actually the author of them, even those received by prophets like himself.

You simply dont agree with the church on this matter.

[Rob Osborn]

Which doctrine? Prophetic fallibility? The fallibiliity of scripture? Continuing revelation?

I think all these positions which DBM has taken are the only responsible teachings and are the official church positions. DBM is only extrapolating out into a specific example.

 

It's hard to claim any absolute, unchanging truth when we know prophets, and therefore scriptures can be in error and that future revelation could correct those errors.

Join up with DBM and start your own church. Its that simple.