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

[Buckeye]

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.

 

...

 

The covenant sisters make to obey their husbands was changed in 1990 such that they now covenant to obey only when, in their judgment, the husband is acting in accord with God's will (this is my paraphrase; I won't quote the actual language here, although there is no covenant obligation not to). 

 

Now, is that a fundamental change? Depends on whether you think the veto was inherent in the covenant pre-1990 and whether a veto changes things. What if the wording for the temple recommend question was changed from (again, my paraphrase) "do you sustain the brethren" to "do you sustain the brethren inasmuch as you believe they are acting in accord with God's will"? I certainly know some members who would think that to be a substantive change.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

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

 

Well, at least now we're back to the original topic of whether church leaders should make room to include all.

[Rob Osborn]

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.

We are created in Gods image. This means that just as we have reproductive sex organs- so does God. It requires both man and woman in the eternities for the seeds to continue. The covenants we make in the temple regarding sexual relations and chastity to our spouse is for time and all eternity.

[Rob Osborn]

Well, at least now we're back to the original topic of whether church leaders should make room to include all.

We dont need a church run amuck.

[CV75]

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?

It isn’t compelling at all—and in addition, if a so-called error or fault is of the kind that can only be altered by revelation, then it cannot rightly be labeled a mistake since nothing better could be required or expected. For example, sin is the willful disobedience to God's commandments or failure to act righteously despite knowledge of the truth -- https://www.lds.org/topics/sin?lang=eng. When the commandments and knowledge of the truth are lacking, sin cannot be imputed until light and knowledge have increased.

 

The Great Apostasy is a good example. Inasmuch as it was brought about through willful disobedience, it was the perpetuated ignorance imposed on subsequent generations that had to be corrected through revelation, not their “mistakes”. The restoration was not the process through which the architects of the Great Apostasy found forgiveness, nor about restoring individual conscience (the light of Christ) which everyone inevitably sinned against (and always did, and always will). We cannot rightly accuse those living in that time of making doctrinal mistakes because they believed with limited light and knowledge, and it is just as wrong to justify the blinding skepticism of the light and knowledge we have today.

 

Those who align homosexual relations with the light of Christ needn’t a revelation to either support or correct them since their decision has been made; likewise those who align them with alleged commandments and covenants (or asserted commandments and covenants yet to be revealed).

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

 

Dynastic sealings. Men sealed and adopted into the families of other men. We don't do that any more. That's a pretty significant change.

 

 

We are created in Gods image. This means that just as we have reproductive sex organs- so does God. It requires both man and woman in the eternities for the seeds to continue.

CFR: How do we know that? Or are you making an assumption?

 

 

DBMormon: 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.

 

 

Rob Osborn: You simply dont agree with the church on this matter.

 

CFR: This may be a statement accepted by the Q15 but I'd like to see a reference that defines the Family Proclamation as a "revelation". To my knowledge it doesn't exist and it's not a part of the canonized scriptures.

 

 

I think there's a whole lot of assuming going on. It's natural to make these assumptions but without a reference or direct teaching we shouldn't bind ourselves to these assumptions.

[Buckeye]

We are created in Gods image. This means that just as we have reproductive sex organs- so does God. It requires both man and woman in the eternities for the seeds to continue. The covenants we make in the temple regarding sexual relations and chastity to our spouse is for time and all eternity.

 

So is God 5 tall or 6? Blonde, brunette, or bald? 10 fingers or 12? O-positive or negative? And let's not even get into skin color ...  Maybe God's image is not a particular body type. Maybe it's characteristics.

 

Regardless, even if eternal reproduction happens in the same way as mortal, that doesn't prevent a doctrine that men/women have eternal increase without engaging in reproduction.  Again, straight LDS couples can include within their eternal progeny children who are not the result of their biological union. So the door is open for others? As Sister Dew said, motherhood and fatherhood is not dependent on biologically bringing children into existence. That's one way, but there are other was to be a parent.

[Bob Crockett]

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

Well, how do you justify creating a "Doctrine of Christ" which is really different than what we hear in conference?  What is your "Doctrine of Christ" if I might ask?  Do you have something from a general conf talk rather than an EFY speaker?

 

From John Taylor, quoting from Joseph Smith:

 

But unfortunately there is a scripture that rather interferes with them and with others, namely: "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine ofChrist, he hath both the Father and the Son." (2 John 9.) I will tell you what Joseph Smith told me personally. Said he: "You are going out to preach the gospel, and if your can find a people anywhere as you wander through the world . . . . having the doctrines of Christ, you need not baptize them.". . . . But I never found anywhere, wherever I went, any persons holding the doctrines of Christ as taught by him, with apostles and prophets and inspired men under the influence of the Holy Ghost, and with an organization similar to that which was introuduced by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Therefore I had to call upon all men everywhere to repent, for I could not find the kind of people Joseph said I need not baptize.—JD, 25:261-263, August 17, 1884.

 

From Wilford Woodruff:

 

One of the peculiar features in the faith of the Latter-day Saints is that we believe there is but one gospel . . . and that it consists of the simple principles taught by the Savior and contained in the New Testament, which principles never deviate one from another. The first was faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; the second was baptism in water by immersion for the remission of sins, and then the laying on of hands for the reception of the Holy Ghost; and this was the kind of doctrine taught by Christ and his apostles, and this was the doctrine that Joseph Smith preached.—JD 19:225, September 16, 1877.

 

The "doctrine of Christ"  is the first principles, not some excuse to say that one does not need to follow the priesthood to be saved, really.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[california boy]

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.

 

What are you talking about.  No one is disputing what has been revealed about straight families.  I certainly have never dismissed any doctrine that has been revealed concerning straight families.  I come from such a home.  I am glad my parents married in the temple.  I am glad they were able to have children.

 

What we are talking about is gay families.  What has been revealed concerning gay children of God.  That is what is completely lacking.  That is where all the guessing from church leaders is coming from.  Like I said, for the first time, the church leaders are telling some members to not marry.  That is a BIG deviation from the plan of salvation that has been revealed.  Did this significant change in policy come from revelation?  NO it did not.  It came strictly from the brethren not knowing God's will for his gay children.  Is it right?  Only a revelation will tell.

[DBMormon]

You simply dont agree with the church on this matter.

First I don't disagree with the Church's Doctrine.  Rather I am open to further light and knowledge. It may change, it may not, I will support the Church's Doctrine whatever it is.  But to play off your accusation neither did Dr. Lowery Nelson..... but he eventually after his death was vindicated when the present Church acknowledged it's Doctrine at points was wrong (curse, less valiant, inter-racial marriage) and perhaps the ban itself

[DBMormon]

I think there's a whole lot of assuming going on. It's natural to make these assumptions but without a reference or direct teaching we shouldn't bind ourselves to these assumptions.

Which is my whole point and foundation of my thoughts.  But why let the facts get in the way of great assumptions.

[DBMormon]

Well, how do you justify creating a "Doctrine of Christ" which is really different than what we hear in conference?  What is your "Doctrine of Christ" if I might ask?  Do you have something from a general conf talk rather than an EFY speaker?

2nd nephi 31 (faith, repentance, baptism, confirmation, and endure to the end, utilyzing Christ's atonement and its gifts of mercy and grace)

It is after all "the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God" according to Nephi.  

[california boy]

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.

 

The most fundamental change in the Plan of Salvation is forbidding of marriage.  For the first time in the history of the church, leaders are telling some of God's children NOT to marry. Wow.  That goes against everything I was ever taught about how the Plan of Salvation works.  And their reason?  well they are gay.

[Mars]

Too busy at work to keep up with all the different viewpoints, so this'll be my last thought.

 

Re: Temple covenants and changes to the sacrament: In all of those suggested changes, making the covenant of obedience in the former and renewing baptismal covenants for the latter haven't changed, so, no...  No fundamental changes, insofar as I judge them.

 

Re: Temple sealings for dynastic and men to men: Yes, changed.  We don't do those any more.  They were also imbued with a different from marriage context and sense of purpose for the sealing, as far as I understand.  Marriage itself and the sealing of such carry an implied desire to have increase.  Obfuscating the point of "How tall is God?  Is He blond or not?" doesn't change the fact that the only reason you and I are here is because of God's increase.

 

So yes, the point is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.  Or put another way, to make us like God - who has increase as evidenced by you and I being here and having this argument.  Whatever lack of information we have on the subject, two men or women cannot by definition fulfil that role.  As such, it doesn't fit with the rest of the revealed word and general direction of the Plan of Salvation.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Whatever lack of information we have on the subject, two men or women cannot by definition fulfil that role.

Again- assumptions.

 

1- You assume we exist as God's children as the result of some kind of celestial procreation. Maybe so, maybe not. I've never seen a discussion about the process of creating spirits.

2- Gay couples can have children. They can adopt. They can have surrogate mothers. Invitro vertilization etc. Those are just a few solutions humans have developed. Is it possible God has other means? Of course.

 

I mentioned earlier that according to church teachings 3 males are responsible for creating the entire universe, including the bodies of Adam and Eve. How did that happen?

 

The only point I am trying to make is that there is WAY too much detail about the workings of God that we do not know. Therefore it is foolish to assume our natural earthly lives and procreative processes are the same as God's. We do not know. If someone does, I'm open to listening. So if we recognize there is much we don't know why would we make definitive statements such as Gays will never be sealed. That they can't be exalted and have eternal increase. We simply do not know how it all works. Admit it. It's liberating.

[CV75]

2nd nephi 31 (faith, repentance, baptism, confirmation, and endure to the end, utilyzing Christ's atonement and its gifts of mercy and grace)

It is after all "the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God" according to Nephi.  

Yes, and these “first principles and ordinance of the gospel” (AoF 4) reflect “The fundamental principles of our religion” which are “the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121). What about the first and great and second commandments, are they not even more fundamental; and the first commandments to Adam and Eve even more fundamental than that?

 

Let’s say your conscience runs counter to a Church teaching or “appendage”. What ray of the Light of Christ or which gift of the Spirit impels you to work on that belief to speak up, act out, etc. while retaining the remission of sins enabled by the Doctrine of Christ?

 

Anyone at enmity with the Brethren over a matter of conscience loses a grasp of whether his initial conviction came from the light of Christ or from other, more expedient or convenient pressures, and he gets co-opted by the latter (which have nothing to do with bona fide revelation). Anyone sustaining the Brethren regardless of such differences will find a higher plane of harmony and unity and thus retain the remission of sins garnered by the Doctrine of Christ . Some manifestations of the light of Christ are found in the combined best interests of the individual and the whole.

 

If the fundamental principles of our religion are “the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets,” then it is well to be aligned with them in testimony and in covenant if not in matters of personal conscience.

 

P.S. I just took a look at 3 Nephi 11 where Christ reveals His doctrine first-hand. verses 28-41 enhances the first-principles-and-ordinances understanding by emphasizing that contention is not His doctrine, and that carrying out His doctrine is entirely dependent on the of ministers to whom He has given power to act in His name for the covenants' sake (verses 21-23, 41). The teachings, the ordinances and means of delivering them constitute the "rock."

Edited January 9, 2015 by CV75

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Anyone at enmity with the Brethren over a matter of conscience loses a grasp of whether his initial conviction came from the light of Christ or from other, more expedient or convenient pressures, and he gets co-opted by the latter (which have nothing to do with bona fide revelation). Anyone sustaining the Brethren regardless of such differences will find a higher plane of harmony and unity and thus retain the remission of sins garnered by the Doctrine of Christ . Some manifestations of the light of Christ are found in the combined best interests of the individual and the whole.

This sounds a lot like "follow the brethren even if they are wrong, and even if your conscience dictates otherwise." Why?

 

 

If the fundamental principles of our religion are “the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets,” then it is well to be aligned with them in testimony and in covenant if not in matters of personal conscience.

 

At the beginning of your post you talk about the first principles of the gospel which focus on Christ and then you end by saying the fundamental principles are the testimonies of apostles and prophets. Do you see that these things are not the same?

 

It is best to have our conscience aligned with Christ. Testimonies of prophets and apostles can err but we have the spirit and the capacity to decide for ourselves what is right or wrong. We don't give the prophets and apostles a blank check and believe everything they say just because they say it. We must align ourselves with Christ and follow the prophets and apostles when they also align with Christ.

[Bob Crockett]

2nd nephi 31 (faith, repentance, baptism, confirmation, and endure to the end, utilyzing Christ's atonement and its gifts of mercy and grace)

It is after all "the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God" according to Nephi.  

I'm very familiar with the way you use the Book of Mormon phrase, adding your particular view of mercy and grace.  

 

My question was -- do you have any statements of the Brethren which explain the "doctrine of Christ" as you see it?  (Again, I'm not interested in Millet (whom I think you misread; and I don't want to debate Millet).)

 

Grace, according to Mormon doctrine, is Christ's salvific act after all we can do.  If we do less, too bad.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[DBMormon]

I'm very familiar with the way you use the Book of Mormon phrase, adding your particular view of mercy and grace.  

 

My question was -- do you have any statements of the Brethren which explain the "doctrine of Christ" as you see it?  (Again, I'm not interested in Millet (whom I think you misread; and I don't want to debate Millet).)

 

Grace, according to Mormon doctrine, is Christ's salvific act after all we can do.  If we do less, too bad.

 

what brethren? present?  this dispensation? prophets of past?  Also if what the brethren say does not mesh with Scripture then Joseph Fielding smith counseled me and you as "duty bound to reject it"  so please clarify and then know I likely see no need to find such a reference as my beliefs do not reside with what a leader has not said or said in an individual occasion.

Edited January 9, 2015 by DBMormon

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Grace, according to Mormon doctrine, is Christ's salvific act after all we can do.

Is Christ's atonement and ability to save limited by our works?

 

This brings us back to the OP and why leaders often think they can't be more inclusive. It's because some people don't deserve to be included. Their works are insufficient and we must teach them with tough love.

[Daniel2]

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.

This was a fantastic post, Buckeye.

Kudos.

[Rob Osborn]

First I don't disagree with the Church's Doctrine.  Rather I am open to further light and knowledge. It may change, it may not, I will support the Church's Doctrine whatever it is.  But to play off your accusation neither did Dr. Lowery Nelson..... but he eventually after his death was vindicated when the present Church acknowledged it's Doctrine at points was wrong (curse, less valiant, inter-racial marriage) and perhaps the ban itself

You do disagree though. You think the church doctrine is wrong and that it will change. That is disagreeing with what they have already said? And what have they said? That Gods law does not allow SSM and that can never change. The only way you would be correct in your statement would be to come into full support and agreement with the stance of the church regarding homosexual behavior and SSM. You have not shown you are in agreement.

[Rob Osborn]

What are you talking about.  No one is disputing what has been revealed about straight families.  I certainly have never dismissed any doctrine that has been revealed concerning straight families.  I come from such a home.  I am glad my parents married in the temple.  I am glad they were able to have children.

 

What we are talking about is gay families.  What has been revealed concerning gay children of God.  That is what is completely lacking.  That is where all the guessing from church leaders is coming from.  Like I said, for the first time, the church leaders are telling some members to not marry.  That is a BIG deviation from the plan of salvation that has been revealed.  Did this significant change in policy come from revelation?  NO it did not.  It came strictly from the brethren not knowing God's will for his gay children.  Is it right?  Only a revelation will tell.

The church has also maintained that one shouldnt act on same sex attraction because it is a sin. We arent going to get a gay revelation allowing homosexuals to be married.

[CV75]

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.

We must acknowledge that we are not the fathers of anyone’s spiritual rebirth, only Christ is. And even if wee assist in His performing that role, spiritual rebirth is not increasing the number of spirit children the Father brought into the first and then sent into the second estate, it is just bringing back into the presence of the Father those in the second estate that will follow Him.

[Buckeye]

...

 

So yes, the point is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.  Or put another way, to make us like God - who has increase as evidenced by you and I being here and having this argument.  Whatever lack of information we have on the subject, two men or women cannot by definition fulfil that role.  As such, it doesn't fit with the rest of the revealed word and general direction of the Plan of Salvation.

 

Assuming that HF and HM had sex, do you really account your existence to that one fact alone? I don't - not for my spiritual creation or for my mortal creation. If it turned out that I was switched at birth, and hence the people I've always called mom and dad were not the ones to bring me into this world, well, I would still fully view those two people as my parents. Why? because parenthood is much much much more than sex. Regardless of whether celestial sex really is part of the plan, we can start by acknowledging that there is room for gays to be parents (to have increase) through the 99.99% of other actions involved in parenthood - the same 99.99% that Christ exemplifies.