Buckeye Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 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. Very good points. I fully agree. But I don't assume that Father "created" spirit children in the same manner that children come into this life. Per the King Follett Discourse, I'm allowed to believe that I have always existed as an intelligence and that my spiritual "creation" is a reflection of following God's word when it came to me rather than a result of celestial sex. As Mark teaches, "in the beginning was the Word." And of course .... gays have as much ability to speak as straights.
CV75 Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 This sounds a lot like "follow the brethren even if they are wrong, and even if your conscience dictates otherwise." Why?I don’t know; I am not exhorting anyone do anything. Maybe your interpretation is Pavlovian! If I were give any kind of instruction from these principles, it would be something like, “Promote harmony and unity to retain a remission of sins and broaden the effects of the light of Christ.” 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?Yes and no, my emphasis is that they both focus on Christ, they are both fundamental principles, and there are more fundamental principles. The “Doctrine of Christ” as laid out in the Book of Mormon covers them all by enjoining peace and harmony in Christ based on the teachings and ordinances of His servants. 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.I see no conflict between this and what I posted, except the claim that a spiritual witness from the Holy Ghost can err. “Testimony” in the quote I provided and in the sense Christ spoke of the teachings of His ministers aren't that.
HappyJackWagon Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 And what have they said? That Gods law does not allow SSM and that can never change.Can you show me where any prophet or apostle as ever said that it can never change?
CV75 Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 Very good points. I fully agree. But I don't assume that Father "created" spirit children in the same manner that children come into this life. Per the King Follett Discourse, I'm allowed to believe that I have always existed as an intelligence and that my spiritual "creation" is a reflection of following God's word when it came to me rather than a result of celestial sex. As Mark teaches, "in the beginning was the Word." And of course .... gays have as much ability to speak as straights.The "how" that we do know is that He has a Wife so that Adam and Eve could be created in Their image, following the eternal pattern of a male-and-female couple bringing forth male and female spirit increase by virtue of their marriage -- this has been discussed so many times on the Board. That whole line of discussion has nothing to do with treating everyone with charity. In fact, I think this thread calls for more discussion of how to practice charity towards gays than hashing over the doctrinal merits /demerits of SSM. Granted I jumped in very late so perhaps that all has been covered already. But charity certainly supersedes doctrine without supplanting it with anti-doctrine.
DBMormon Posted January 9, 2015 Author Posted January 9, 2015 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.I am open to it changing and am hopeful it will and I think there is room for it to happen. That said I have never once said it is wrong or that it has to change, that is a big difference.
california boy Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 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.Sexual relationships outside of marriage whether straight or gay are both viewed as an abomination according to the scriptures. There is no scripture or revelation on SSM. And now you are dictating to God what He is allowed to reveal? Do you have control issues??
Rob Osborn Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 Sexual relationships outside of marriage whether straight or gay are both viewed as an abomination according to the scriptures. There is no scripture or revelation on SSM. And now you are dictating to God what He is allowed to reveal? Do you have control issues??This is the point we always come to where there is no further room for debate. You refuse to acknowledge that homosexuality is wrong and a sin. You seem to miss this main point and think there has been no revelation on SSM. You cant get to SSM to even debate if you cant first overcome the fact that homosexuality is a sin. 1
Rob Osborn Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 I am open to it changing and am hopeful it will and I think there is room for it to happen. That said I have never once said it is wrong or that it has to change, that is a big difference.It isnt going to change. There is no room for it to change in Gods kingdom.
Rob Osborn Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 Can you show me where any prophet or apostle as ever said that it can never change?"Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We urge you to review and teach Church members the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-instructs-leaders-on-same-sex-marriage
DBMormon Posted January 10, 2015 Author Posted January 10, 2015 It isnt going to change. There is no room for it to change in Gods kingdom.Again, many said the same thing in 1975 about PH and blacks. It is a faulty argument. It may change, it may not. Only God can determine that and while we interpret his scriptures as condemning homosexuality, wew have been wrong before about how we interpret his word. (relationship of doubt and faith, PH blacks, Grace after all we can do, women keep quiet in the church, Dynastic sealings vs the right way) There are examples and while I would 100% agree we are painted further into this corner, With God, all things are possible.
carbon dioxide Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 Again, many said the same thing in 1975 about PH and blacks. It is a faulty argument. It may change, it may not. Only God can determine that and while we interpret his scriptures as condemning homosexuality, wew have been wrong before about how we interpret his word. (relationship of doubt and faith, PH blacks, Grace after all we can do, women keep quiet in the church, Dynastic sealings vs the right way) There are examples and while I would 100% agree we are painted further into this corner, With God, all things are possible.Anything is possible. It is possible that God might change the laws and allow people to marry their pets. My dog loves me. She follows me around, wags her tail and looks happy. I could ask her to marry me and she would wag her tail in approval. If gay marriage is compatible with Celestial law, why not interspecies marriage? With God, all things are possible.
carbon dioxide Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 Sexual relationships outside of marriage whether straight or gay are both viewed as an abomination according to the scriptures. There is no scripture or revelation on SSM. And now you are dictating to God what He is allowed to reveal? Do you have control issues??There really does not need to be a revelation. There is no scriptural or rational reason why SSM would be remotely compatible with the laws of God. It is on the lines of interspecies marriage. There is no reason to ever think that God would give a revelation that says we can marry our dogs and cats. Who knows God might change his mind but if I was a betting man and played the odds, I would bet my entire 401K and pension on SSM never be authorized by God. In fact I will give it all to you. If there is ever a revelation that God will allow SSM, you get into contact with me, I will give you my entire inheritance from my parents. You on the other hand do not have to give me anything. I am that confident on this subject.
california boy Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 There really does not need to be a revelation. There is no scriptural or rational reason why SSM would be remotely compatible with the laws of God. It is on the lines of interspecies marriage. There is no reason to ever think that God would give a revelation that says we can marry our dogs and cats. Who knows God might change his mind but if I was a betting man and played the odds, I would bet my entire 401K and pension on SSM never be authorized by God. In fact I will give it all to you. If there is ever a revelation that God will allow SSM, you get into contact with me, I will give you my entire inheritance from my parents. You on the other hand do not have to give me anything. I am that confident on this subject.Great. Tell me how to get in contact with you. We can draw up a contract. There won't be any of this "forget everything that I have said before on this subject. We now follow the prophet." stuff.
carbon dioxide Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 Great. Tell me how to get in contact with you. We can draw up a contract. There won't be any of this "forget everything that I have said before on this subject. We now follow the prophet." stuff.I can send you a email and that would be good enough. Hey if this was to happen I would be able to make up the difference by not paying tithing anymore. To me, SSM acceptance would be a sign to me that the gospel and church is a fraud so we both end up financially better.
Bob Crockett Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Again, many said the same thing in 1975 about PH and blacks. It is a faulty argument. It may change, it may not. Only God can determine that and while we interpret his scriptures as condemning homosexuality, wew have been wrong before about how we interpret his word. (relationship of doubt and faith, PH blacks, Grace after all we can do, women keep quiet in the church, Dynastic sealings vs the right way) There are examples and while I would 100% agree we are painted further into this corner, With God, all things are possible.I know I've told you this at least three times, but the Inspired Version doesn't have women keeping quiet in the church. What conf address has read out the doctrine of all you can do? I've asked you that before and all you did was misuse Wilcox and Millet. There us nothing wrong with dynastic sealings. It stopped at about the same as polygamy stopped. One cannot assume that an abominable sin will become sinless merely because the church changed some unrelated doctrine. Am I to assume that abortion some day will be sinless because the gospel was taken to the Gentiles?
DBMormon Posted January 11, 2015 Author Posted January 11, 2015 I know I've told you this at least three times, but the Inspired Version doesn't have women keeping quiet in the church.What conf address has read out the doctrine of all you can do? I've asked you that before and all you did was misuse Wilcox and Millet.There us nothing wrong with dynastic sealings. It stopped at about the same as polygamy stopped.One cannot assume that an abominable sin will become sinless merely because the church changed some unrelated doctrine. Am I to assume that abortion some day will be sinless because the gospel was taken to the Gentiles?In my interview with Bro., Wilcox, I have shared my view with him and he seemed quite pleased that I was speaking to the same ideas. Perhaps you need them to fit the standard answers so badly you are misunderstanding them rather then me. Bob, we will never agree so do you really see a point in my engaging you on this when you and I know it will go no where. Also yes, you have told me several times the inspired version addresses Paul but that still doesn't negate it being used incorrectly in the previous dispensation which still fits my point
Rob Osborn Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Again, many said the same thing in 1975 about PH and blacks. It is a faulty argument. It may change, it may not. Only God can determine that and while we interpret his scriptures as condemning homosexuality, wew have been wrong before about how we interpret his word. (relationship of doubt and faith, PH blacks, Grace after all we can do, women keep quiet in the church, Dynastic sealings vs the right way) There are examples and while I would 100% agree we are painted further into this corner, With God, all things are possible. God will not cause His holy temples to be trampled with the filth and immorality of the world. Homosexuality is completely counter to Heavenly Fathers plan. If there were two plans- Gods, and Satans, Gods would be families with a mother and father while Satans would be homosexual couples who were married to mock God.
Bob Crockett Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) In my interview with Bro., Wilcox, I have shared my view with him and he seemed quite pleased that I was speaking to the same ideas. Perhaps you need them to fit the standard answers so badly you are misunderstanding them rather then me.Bob, we will never agree so do you really see a point in my engaging you on this when you and I know it will go no where.Also yes, you have told me several times the inspired version addresses Paul but that still doesn't negate it being used incorrectly in the previous dispensation which still fits my pointHave you really read Wilcox? In writing he doesn't say what you claim. Any modern conference addresses which see it your way about "all you can do." Edited January 11, 2015 by Bob Crockett
DBMormon Posted January 11, 2015 Author Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) Have you really read Wilcox? In writing he doesn't say what you claim.Any modern conference addresses which see it your way about "all you can do."Elder HallstromHowever, this vastly increased accessibility to the voices of the Lord’s servants, which are the same as the Lord’s own voice (see D&C 1:38), has little value unless we are willing to receive the word (see D&C 11:21) and then follow it. Simply stated, the purpose of general conference and of this priesthood session is fulfilled only if we are willing to act—if we are willing to change. If you think your challenges are insurmountable, let me tell you of a man we met in a small village outside of Hyderabad, India, in 2006. This man exemplified a willingness to change. The invitation to “come unto Christ, and be perfected in him” (Moroni 10:32) both requires and expects change. (Bob you may be thinking this phrase kills my idea but notice where he credits the change coming from) Mercifully, He has not left us alone. “And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. … Then will I make weak things become strong” We CAN'T DO ALL WE CAN DO.... but when we try and are willing (what is required of us), Christ's GRACE does the CHANGING for us. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/what-manner-of-men?lang=eng To receive this enabling power, we must obey the gospel of Jesus Christ, which includes having faith in Him, repenting of our sins, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and trying to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ for the rest of our lives.https://www.lds.org/topics/grace?lang=eng&query=grace (rather than follow we receive grace, forgiveness, mercy from trying to follow)seems pretty clear to me. but this isn't the purpose of the OP so please don't debate Grace here create a new thread if desired. Edited January 11, 2015 by DBMormon
Bob Crockett Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) You are reading into Elder Hallstrom's talk the same sort of non-stuff and contradictory stuff you read into Brad Wilcox. "After all we can do" is an essential Mormon doctrine, a hallmark of the restored Gospel, and what sets us apart from Evangelicals who would teach, "once saved, always saved." I direct you to Elder Oaks in 2005, the Church website on "after all we can do," and, lastly, to the Brad Wilcox article you like to mention frequently. Wilcox, in "His Grace is Sufficient," says: If Jesus did not require covenants and bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost, then there would be no way to change. We would be left forever with only willpower, with no access to His power. If Jesus did not require endurance to the end, then there would be no internalization of those changes over time. They would forever be surface and cosmetic rather than sinking inside us and becoming part of us—part of who we are. Put simply, if Jesus didn’t require practice, then we would never become pianists.... One young man wrote me the following e-mail: “I know God has all power, and I know He will help me if I’m worthy, but I’m just never worthy enough to ask for His help. I want Christ’s grace, but I always find myself stuck in the same self-defeating and impossible position: no work, no grace.” I wrote him back and testified with all my heart that Christ is not waiting at the finish line once we have done “all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23). He is with us every step of the way. Elder Bruce C. Hafen has written, “The Savior’s gift of grace to us is not necessarily limited in time to ‘after’ all we can do. We may receive his grace before, during and after the time when we expend our own efforts” (The Broken Heart [salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989], 155). You will observe that you have cherry-picked from the LDS doctrine of grace something other than what is clear Mormon doctrine. As Wilcox says, grace saves us in the end if we have done all that we can do on our part. But along the way, Christ's grace helps us get there. I have a close friend a gay man, a member of the church, who married his partner of 20 years just a few weeks ago. He has told me may times privately that he'd like to come back to the church and would hope that someday the Spirit will work on him to change. This is an example of Christ's grace working on a priesthood holder who has an inkling of wanting to change, wanting to repent, but hasn't yet. No amount of his wishing right now will save him. He hasn't done all that he can do. So, what you've done with your frequent posts is to latch on the something Brad Wilcox has said in part without understanding all that he has said. Nonetheless, many Evangelicals have apparently noted that Brad Wilcox's particular views and styles conflict with LDS notions of grace, so I can see how you'd get sucked into all that. As I have said in the past, I know Brad Wilcox personally but not well enough not to sometimes call him "Michael." My stake paid him to come and lead one of our youth conferences. I would be really careful in marching to his tune without a better understanding of what is on the Church's website, student manuals and conference addresses. Peace to you brother; you won't find it by teaching members of the church they don't have to do all that they can do and that Christ's grace is sufficient even if we do much less than our best to return to Him. Edited January 11, 2015 by Bob Crockett
Scott Lloyd Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Can you show me where any prophet or apostle as ever said that it can never change?See the D. Todd Christofferson quote from the "Mormons and Gays" website earlier in this thread.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 I can send you a email and that would be good enough. Hey if this was to happen I would be able to make up the difference by not paying tithing anymore. To me, SSM acceptance would be a sign to me that the gospel and church is a fraud so we both end up financially better.Or that the Church had lost its way and another general apostasy had transpired. But we have divine assurance that won't happen.
CV75 Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 See the D. Todd Christofferson quote from the "Mormons and Gays" website earlier in this thread.There are those that say this is no guarantee that the Church’s teaching on homosexual behavior won’t change, which allows them the luxury of entertaining the hope that it will someday condone homosexual behavior. Or that there has never been specific revelation about it, allowing the privilege to hope that it will be embraced as a godly practice. In either case they are by their own admission hoping without divine light and knowledge, in the first case by coveting what is taught to be a sinful practice and in the second, by not acknowledging any revelation in the first place. They are walking only in the sparks they have kindled. The doctrine of Christ as laid out in 3 Nephi 11 does not allow this kind of approach to the teachings of the servants of God. The Lord helps us understand the proper approach by describing its antithesis (contention, disputation and stirring up over the points of His doctrine and manner of administration). The elements of His doctrine of course are: build upon His rock; become as a little child; repent and believe in Him; be baptized to inherit His kingdom; receive fire and the Holy Ghost to receive the record of the Father; and, divine power to mortal servants to establish the rock and the kingdom, to declare His word, and to perform the ordinances. Walking by the sparks one has kindled can result in nothing but running contrary to every point of the doctrine of Christ, and for some reason highlights claims against what the servants of God teach. 4
Bob Crockett Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) Also yes, you have told me several times the inspired version addresses Paul but that still doesn't negate it being used incorrectly in the previous dispensation which still fits my point So, Joseph Smith renders a correct translation of women being silent in the church (instead, he rendered it to they can't lead in the church) and you think this is support for the view that the church might extend full fellowship to homosexuals? I just don't get that logic one iota. It is an appeal to ignorance of sorts. Just because the church hasn't done it yet means it might. Aren't you better off, as a faithful member of the church, counseling members to adhere to the positions expressed by the First Presidency in the Proclamation unless we hear otherwise? I mean, I'm a Libertarian. I opposed Prop 8, but because my Stake President asked me to support it I did. I continue to support gay marriage on libertarian principles. but I also teach and acknowledge that the Church does not. Edited January 11, 2015 by Bob Crockett
canard78 Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 It should not be ignored as I don't believe God cares if an action is done between two consenting adults or not. A violation of God's law is not lessened because those involved agree to it.Comparing homosexuality is against board rules. Read the "sticky" (hot button topics) on the front page. California Boy maintained some dignity by letting it slide. Perhaps you missed the mods' thread so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. It's a nasty tactic and shows you're on thin ice if that's the best argument you have left.
Recommended Posts