JLHPROF Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 IOW, it is also not official. Oh nothing is "official" anymore. If the GA's making pronouncments and the members who vote by common consent on what is official can't even agree or decide on what is official doctrine, there probably isn't any... I long for the days when every wild opinion uttered by every rogue GA was considered official and binding and folklore was as quoted as scripture. Life was much more interesting and people didn't pick and choose so much what they felt like accepting.
pogi Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 what about when leaders in earlier times said interracial marriage was sin and that teaching was Doctrine? Why did doctrinal sin then become acceptable today? If it changed then it never came from God and was not doctrine. Prophets are fallible, that is not being contested. Personal revelation is key. What I am contesting is that "if" something is sin, then it can never be better than not sinning. 1
pogi Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Interesting thought. Can something still be a sin even if it brings one closer to God? We all die in sin. The main goal seems to be becoming more Christlike in the process. For most of us, marriage is an important part of learning to be more Christlike. Or is SSM such an evil sin that no matter what else a person does in life, he could never become more Christlike if he is in a gay marriage. I don't believe that sin can bring one closer to God. Perhaps you are comparing SSM to a begrudging sacrifice of celibacy. That is not righteousness and may well turn you from God, in which case SSM may feel like it is bringing you closer to God. It is a misperception. If the law is lived in the right heart, you will be as close to God as you possibly can be in this life, though your trials may be many. You must approach it like a fast, if done in the right heart, it will bring you closer to God, if done begrudgingly, it will be counted against you.
california boy Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) I don't believe that sin can bring one closer to God. Perhaps you are comparing SSM to a begrudging sacrifice of celibacy. That is not righteousness and may well turn you from God, in which case SSM may feel like it is bringing you closer to God. It is a misperception. If the law is lived in the right heart, you will be as close to God as you possibly can be in this life, though your trials may be many. You must approach it like a fast, if done in the right heart, it will bring you closer to God, if done begrudgingly, it will be counted against you. Do you not think that marriage, because of the structure of marriage, brings you closer to God than if you were celibate your whole life? If not, then maybe we should all follow the advice of Paul and all remain celibate, if celibacy brings us closer to God. I am not comparing SSM to being a begrudging sacrifice of celibacy, but rather I am comparing SSM to the downside of celibacy. I guess what I am suggesting is that truths should be universal for all of mankind. The church so strongly urges it's members to marry because it recognizes the importance of that family unit and the blessings of being in that structure. So if the only reason gays can't marry is because it is a sin to act out on being gay, then perhaps that sin is of less importance than learning those important relationship lessons that only come through marriage. And in context to what I initially asked. If marriage for gay couples ends up being a much more healthy and spiritual relationship than being celibate, would the church still discount that importance and stick to demanding gay members stay celibate rather than marry. It is kinda like the church counseling gay members to marry a woman but later changed course because they saw the destructive results of that policy. Try to look at how this issue might be recognized in the future rather than how it is viewed right now. Edited February 10, 2015 by california boy
Scott Lloyd Posted February 10, 2015 Author Posted February 10, 2015 Interesting thought. Can something still be a sin even if it brings one closer to God? We all die in sin. The main goal seems to be becoming more Christlike in the process. For most of us, marriage is an important part of learning to be more Christlike. Or is SSM such an evil sin that no matter what else a person does in life, he could never become more Christlike if he is in a gay marriage.In God's view, same-sex "marriage" is not marriage. See the quote from Elder Nelson in my sig. 3
Pahoran Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Not particularly or specifically but you are lumping me in with that group generally...... right? You said I shared that source hence via your statement I am one of the dishonest ones. Do you see why it would be hard to make a serious discussion with you if you simply paint (which you have done twice now) those who disagree with you as having some intellectual inferiority or moral flaw? My position re "The Seer" is of long standing. I didn't contrive it just for you, and I'm not going to abandon it just for you, either. I suppose if I said that only dishonest people cheat on their taxes, some tax cheat could claim to feel offended about it. Well, I'm sorry if it offends, but that is my position. Let me know when your ready to be accountable for what you say personally about another and then I will attempt to answer your question. How superbly condescending. Regards, Pahoran
california boy Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 In God's view, same-sex "marriage" is not marriage. See the quote from Elder Nelson in my sig.I don't think that is what I am discussing here is it. I understand why you don't want to participate in the questions that I raise, but as you well know, and I have stated time and time again, I fully accept that SSM is not marriage in the eyes of the church.
Pahoran Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 In terms of the seer it was an official periodical of the Church (1853-1854). That said leaders years later (1865) renounced it as not sanctioned. So acknowledge by the 1865 and after standard it was not Doctrinal. It was not an official periodical of the Church. Orson Pratt accepted sole responsibility for its contents. That said I shared multiple sources and the two from the First Presidency are sufficient to show that they believed the race ban was Doctrinally tied to performance/behavior in the pre-mortal life But they did not support the "fence sitter" canard. If you want to be respected for your honesty and/or intelligence, then perhaps you ought to start making an effort to keep your assertions factual and put some thought into your arguments. The Contributor was a LDS magazine https://www.lds.org/church/news/online-collection-of-historical-church-magazines-expanding?lang=eng The Contributor (1879–1896) was intended “to represent the Mutual Improvement Associations, and to furnish a publication of peculiar interest to their members and to the mature youth of our people.” It was seen as quasi official "Was seen" by whom? I tend to mistrust passive-voice assertions. Just so you know, the "Mutual Improvement Associations" is the old name for the youth programs. In the pre-correlation days, auxiliaries had their own budgets and publications. A "quasi official," virtually arm's length publication is a whole lot less official than the Ensign, for example. I stand by what I said: "Same sex marriage" is not going to happen in the Church. Not only that, but informed, thoughtful people don't expect it, and faithful, believing Latter-day Saints don't want it. Regards, Pahoran 1
Rob Osborn Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Do you not think that marriage, because of the structure of marriage, brings you closer to God than if you were celibate your whole life? If not, then maybe we should all follow the advice of Paul and all remain celibate, if celibacy brings us closer to God. I am not comparing SSM to being a begrudging sacrifice of celibacy, but rather I am comparing SSM to the downside of celibacy. I guess what I am suggesting is that truths should be universal for all of mankind. The church so strongly urges it's members to marry because it recognizes the importance of that family unit and the blessings of being in that structure. So if the only reason gays can't marry is because it is a sin to act out on being gay, then perhaps that sin is of less importance than learning those important relationship lessons that only come through marriage. And in context to what I initially asked. If marriage for gay couples ends up being a much more healthy and spiritual relationship than being celibate, would the church still discount that importance and stick to demanding gay members stay celibate rather than marry. It is kinda like the church counseling gay members to marry a woman but later changed course because they saw the destructive results of that policy. Try to look at how this issue might be recognized in the future rather than how it is viewed right now.The part that keeps sticking out is in your line- " If marriage for gay couples ends up being a much more healthy and spiritual relationship"This is the part where you see things different than the church and I see this approach a lot thanks to Hollywood for glamorizing immorality and calling these immoral relationships as "normal" even to the point of celebrating such immorality. There is no part of an immoral relationship that is healthy and spiritual. The Holy Ghost does not sanctify such relationships and so I do not see how it can be"spiritual". Spiritual pertains to that which is "holy" and you cannot place an immoral relationship in front of God and hope to remain holy before Him.
DBMormon Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 It was never official hence the renunciation. Stop trying to make it something it is not.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seer_%28periodical%29http://en.fairmormon.org/The_Seer It was sanctioned by the prophet and carried out with that sanction by an apostle... not sure how much more official you can get. But yes it was disavowed 12 years later (kind of like race theories and interracial marriage as sin)
DBMormon Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 If it changed then it never came from God and was not doctrine. Prophets are fallible, that is not being contested. Personal revelation is key. What I am contesting is that "if" something is sin, then it can never be better than not sinning. so only in hindsight can we really know what Doctrines were never Doctrines to begin with..... interesting 3
Coreyb Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 It was not an official periodical of the Church. Orson Pratt accepted sole responsibility for its contents. But they did not support the "fence sitter" canard.If you want to be respected for your honesty and/or intelligence, then perhaps you ought to start making an effort to keep your assertions factual and put some thought into your arguments. "Was seen" by whom? I tend to mistrust passive-voice assertions.Just so you know, the "Mutual Improvement Associations" is the old name for the youth programs. In the pre-correlation days, auxiliaries had their own budgets and publications. A "quasi official," virtually arm's length publication is a whole lot less official than the Ensign, for example.I stand by what I said: "Same sex marriage" is not going to happen in the Church. Not only that, but informed, thoughtful people don't expect it, and faithful, believing Latter-day Saints don't want it.Regards,PahoranThe truth of this whole matter about the Seer is that there simply no standard of "official" vs "unofficial" in those days that resembles the standard we have today. Even saying whether it was "official" or not is anachronistic. The Seer was disavowed for a few very specific reasons that had to with a doctrinal dispute going on between Pratt and Young. It certainly can be used to show mormon doctrines being taught at the time. 2
mfbukowski Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 If it was indeed the revealed word of God, he may as well have written it. Either His voice is "the same" as his servants or it is not. It is truth or lie. It is from God or from man. We cannot confuse the mistakes of man with the revealed word of God, or all trust in God is lost. I agree that the word of God is often delivered in cultural contexts (Isaiah for example), for our understanding (or lack thereof). However, it doesn't matter how radically different our culture is today from the time of Isaiah, it will all come to pass despite the changing culture. If Elder Christofferson said that the doctrine will "never" change under the direction of the spirit and under the mantle of a prophet, then he is right and always will be. If Elder Christofferson was speaking non-prophetically however, then all bets are off. That's where personal revelation comes into play. I don't believe that what I have said is a form of idolatry. To follow blindly after the prophets is ignorance, to follow their word after being prompted by the Lord is righteousness, to consider them infallible is next to idolatry, to worship them is idolatry. I don't believe that the Lord's words through his prophets are dependent upon our support or defense. If it came from God, it will happen with or without our help or lack thereof, and with or without the changing culture. I don't know what this has to do with what I said. I don't disagree with any of it.
mfbukowski Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 I don't disagree with any of this, except for the "uh, no" part oh, and the last paragraph. Perhaps I am not being understood. The reason you follow your heart is because you trust God. You trust that he will not lie to you. If he will not lie to you, then you can trust that he will not lie to his prophet. The problem is that prophets are fallible. They sometimes say things that really were not from God. Therefore, we should not trust them like we trust God. But we should look to them and follow their words as they speak to our heart, because when they are speaking the word of the Lord, you can count on it as if it was God himself speaking it. Because God tells me to follow something, it doesn't necessarily make it true. It could be a way to truth. If God inspired a man to become Catholic for example, it doesn't make the words of all the popes true, nor does it make it the true and living church, but it makes it a way to truth. So, there is a difference between God guiding your ever evolving life and God revealing unchanging truth. The key is that we have to be in-tune to recognize if a prophet is speaking as a prophet. If we cannot count on the revealed word of God through a prophet, what is the point of a prophet if what he says when moved by the spirit cannot be trusted? What is the point of God in that case if he is speaking lies to the prophets? Saying that something "will never change" cannot be true today and change tomorrow with the culture. If it changes, then it was never true and never came from God. Well I certainly agree with the spirit of all this, except that truth is a property of sentences and sentences change with language and culture.Things are not "true", I have never seen a true chair in my life and I have never heard of a sentence that was not expressed in language. Sentences expressed in ancient Hebrew in ancient times are not the same as sentences expressed in contemporary English unless they are very simple and uninteresting. They cannot be. So I do not understand what the idea of "unchanging truth" could possibly be. 1
pogi Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 so only in hindsight can we really know what Doctrines were never Doctrines to begin with..... interestingYou missed the part I mentioned about personal revelation being key. Hindsight in this particular instance however does act as a good witness to the blind follower.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 10, 2015 Author Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) I don't think that is what I am discussing here is it. I understand why you don't want to participate in the questions that I raise, but as you well know, and I have stated time and time again, I fully accept that SSM is not marriage in the eyes of the church.A subtle change from what I actually said, but I'm not surprised. Your questions you raise presuppose God has no opinion on what constitutes marriage. Edited February 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 3
Scott Lloyd Posted February 10, 2015 Author Posted February 10, 2015 The truth of this whole matter about the Seer is that there simply no standard of "official" vs "unofficial" in those days that resembles the standard we have today. Even saying whether it was "official" or not is anachronistic. The Seer was disavowed for a few very specific reasons that had to with a doctrinal dispute going on between Pratt and Young. It certainly can be used to show mormon doctrines being taught at the time.If there was no standard of official and unofficial, then there is not much point in going way back then to cherry pick quotes about the position of the Church pertaining to blacks and the priesthood, interracial marriage or anything else, is there? 2
mfbukowski Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 A subtle change from what I actually said, but I'm not surprised.Indeed that is why I do not respond to him any more.
Coreyb Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 If there was no standard of official and unofficial, then there is not much point in going way back then to cherry pick quotes about the position of the Church pertaining to blacks and the priesthood, interracial marriage or anything else, is there?Except to figure out what people where talking about back then pertaining to the gospel, and maybe glean some revelatory truths long since forgotten. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 10, 2015 Author Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Except to figure out what people where talking about back then pertaining to the gospel, and maybe glean some revelatory truths long since forgotten.Well if it's stuff that has since been disavowed by the Church, then there's no truth in it, revelatory or otherwise, and raising it as an argument to apply today can only serve to cloud the issue. Maybe you can join me in reminding DBMormon of that next time he tries to use quotations from "The Seer" or obscure correspondence to justify contradicting or disregarding the clear, contemporary and unified voice of the prophets and apostles in defining and teaching the doctrine of the Church. Edited February 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 2
Coreyb Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Well if it's stuff that has since been disavowed by the Church, then there's no truth in it, revelatory or otherwise, and raising it as an argument to apply today can only serve to cloud the issue.Maybe you can join me in reminding DBMormon of that next time he tries to use quotations from "The Seer" or obscure correspondence to justify contradicting or disregarding the clear, contemporary and unified voice of the prophets and apostles in defining and teaching the doctrine of the Church.Really?! Why not? Do you know that one of the problems Brigham had with it was that Orson argued that God was not progressing in knowledge or learning new truths? This is a derail, but I just don't understand how you can draw such a hard line like that. Is there no truth in the Qu'ran? The Talmud? The books of Enoch? The Lectures on Faith? Astounding! Edited February 10, 2015 by Coreyb 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 10, 2015 Author Posted February 10, 2015 Really?! Why not? Do you know that one of the problems Brigham had with it was that Orson argued that God was not progressing in knowledge or learning new truths? This is a derail, but I just don't understand how you can draw such a hard line like that. Is there no truth in the Qu'ran? The Talmud? The books of Enoch? The Lectures on Faith? Astounding!This has to be one of the most glaring non sequitur instances I've encountered on this board. 3
Coreyb Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 This has to be one of the most glaring non sequitur instances I've encountered on this board.Calling it a name doesn't make it so
Scott Lloyd Posted February 10, 2015 Author Posted February 10, 2015 Calling it a name doesn't make it soNeither does insisting on it. Bottom line: You've just given us a good reason for not regarding DBMormon's cherry-picked quotes from yesteryear as being relavent to conditions today. Thank you. Maybe it was unwitting on your part, but thank you just the same. 1
Stone holm Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 A subtle change from what I actually said, but I'm not surprised.Your questions you raise presuppose God has no opinion on what constitutes marriage.Am sure God has an opinion on what constitutes a marriage, the pertinent question is whether He wants us to try and force everybody else to share his opinion by legislation, or is He content that his saints share His opinion and don't try force it upon our brothers and sisters.
Recommended Posts