The Clock Is Running On This False Prophecy

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, I firmly believe that toward the end of the ban, the good men who lead our church were honesty seeking the Lord's will on the matter.

That doesn't change the prejudice that was present earlier.

Whether or not prejudice was present is an issue separate and apart from whether or not it was God who decreed that the priesthood would be temporarily withheld from certain of and ultimately granted to all of God's worthy sons.

[Scott Lloyd]

Part two of my perdition is that IF the church acts on what Elder Oaks outlined in his right to discriminate because of religious beliefs, speech, then it will only further entrench the church as an institution that is against equal protection for gays. 

(Emphasis mine)

 

I think it's fairly obvious that california boy meant to say prediction here and that, like most of us from time to time, he was the victim of an overly energetic auto-fill function.

 

Still, it is a striking coincidence.

[Analytics]

It will be interesting to see whether or not this "prophecy" turns out to be false.  As Jeffery Holland recently noted (near minute 41 of this video), "[Latter-day Saints] eventually follow the world, in some way, in much of its social trending."

 

Of course the Church will be reluctant to change course on this, but the tension with social norms will become intense. Transforming into a church that embraces same-sex marriage would be no more radical than transforming into a church that embraces monogamy.  

 

Edited to correct spelling of word "prophecy".

Edited February 16, 2015 by Analytics

[Anteojito]

Can you show me one statement that perhaps someday SSM will be sanctified by God, from any prophet of God in our Church?

Don't need to. The point is, the church leadership have had very definitive statements about things in the past (polygamy/priesthood ban) that have been reversed. So precedence has been set. If I were a betting man and Las Vegas were taking bets on this, I would definitely bet that the church will allow SSS (same sex sealing)

within the next 40 years. Probably less.

[Scott Lloyd]

It will be interesting to see whether or not this "prophesy" turns out to be false. 

 

Did you mean to say prophecy? Prophesy (a verb) is neither spelled nor pronounced the same as prophecy (a noun). It's a pet peeve of mine. And I did spell it properly in the thread title, so you can't blame me for inducing you to spell it wrong.

 

As Jeffery Holland recently noted (near minute 41 of this video), "[Latter-day Saints] eventually follow the world, in some way, in much of its social trending."

 

Well, at least you were honest enough to link us to the video and direct us to the relevant part in it so we could go there and determine for ourselves how you took his remark out of context.

 

While he was candidly acknowledging that the Church's members tend to follow social trends "in some way", that is not saying that the Church as an institution will succumb to societal pressure to ignore and violate the law of God as pertaining to chastity and marriage. In fact, the tenor of the address as a whole is that the Church of Jesus Christ will resist doing that very thing and to admonish young people in the Church to also resist it.

 

Of course the Church will be reluctant to change course on this, but the tension with social norms will become intense. Transforming into a church that embraces same-sex marriage would be no more radical than transforming into a church that embraces monogamy.

 

Of course, this is uttered from the perspective of an avowed unbeliever who thinks that societal pressure rather than the decrees of God is apt to drive the Church of Jesus Christ. It is hardly surprising that such a statement would come from you.

 

 

Edited February 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Don't need to. The point is, the church leadership have had very definitive statements about things in the past (polygamy/priesthood ban) that have been reversed. So precedence has been set. If I were a betting man and Las Vegas were taking bets on this, I would definitely bet that the church will allow SSS (same sex sealing)

within the next 40 years. Probably less.

Precedent has not been set. As has been pointed out to you, Church leaders have clearly, consistently, unitedly and unequivocally stated that the doctrine and practice of the Church with regard to homosexual behavior being a violation of the law of chastity is not changing and will not change.

 

That was never the case with the examples you cite.

 

Again, there is a current thread on this board about this topic. Link.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Analytics]

 

Did you mean to say prophecy? Prophesy (a verb) is neither spelled nor pronounced the same as prophecy (a noun). Is a pet peeve of mine. And I did spell it properly in the thread title, so you can't blame me for inducing you to spell it wrong.

 

It's bizarre that you would think I'd be inclined to blame you for my spelling error.  In any case, thanks for the correction.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's bizarre that you would think I'd be inclined to blame you for my spelling error.  In any case, thanks for the correction.

I'm not saying you would have blamed me, just pointing out that I wasn't the subconscious cause of it.

[Analytics]

I'm not saying you would have blamed me, just pointing out that I wasn't the subconscious cause of it.

 

Okay.  I'll give you a rep point for that.

[Buckeye]

I'm not saying you would have blamed me, just pointing out that I wasn't the subconscious cause of it.

 

Now that's just begging the question ....

[Scott Lloyd]

Okay.  I'll give you a rep point for that.

I'm not sure I merited it, so I'll give you one in return for your graciousness.

[Scott Lloyd]

Now that's just begging the question ....

[JLHPROF]

 As has been pointed out to you, Church leaders have clearly, consistently, unitedly and unequivocally stated that the doctrine and practice of the Church with regard to homosexual behavior being a violation of the law of chastity is not changing and will not change.

That was never the case with the examples you cite.

 

I don't believe this to be an accurate statement.  Both plural marriage and the priesthood ban were "clearly, consistently, unitedly and unequivocally stated that the doctrine and practice of the Church" would never change.

 

And then it did.  If there are statements by early Church leaders that clearly show they expected either plural marriage to end or the priesthood ban to be removed in this lifetime, I don't believe I've ever seen them.

 

I don't know if the Church will ever allow SSM or anything similar, but I DO think the precedence is there for them to do an about face.  Whether they will or not depends on both their choice and society.

Edited February 17, 2015 by JLHPROF

[mnn727]

.

 

So come back in 2055, and if I'm still here and able to raise my decrepit, hundred-year-old hands to maneuver a keyboard, we will revisit this.

Gee, I'll only be 99 then.

 

BTW, good luck on a phone lasting 40 years. Only phone I know that lasted that long was black, had a rotary dial and hung on my mothers kitchen wall. It was put in when they bought the house in 1958 (when I was 2)  and was still there after she passed and we sold the house in 2008.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't believe this to be an accurate statement.  Both plural marriage and the priesthood ban were "clearly, consistently, unitedly and unequivocally stated that the doctrine and practice of the Church" would never change.

 

And then it did.  If there are statements by early Church leaders that clearly show they expected either plural marriage to end or the priesthood ban to be removed in this lifetime, I don't believe I've ever seen them.

 

I don't know if the Church will ever allow SSM or anything similar, but I DO think the precedence is there for them to do an about face.  Whether they will or not depends on both their choice and society.

OD2 itself quotes a letter from President Kimball in which he says, "Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God's eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these our faithful brethren" etc.

 

President Kimball would never have made this strenuous and prolonged effort if the foregone conclusion was that the restriction would never be lifted.

 

Even the supposedly damning statement from Brigham Young that has been quoted on this thread makes it clear that the priesthood would one day be granted to blacks.

 

I'm puzzled by your statement. Had you never read OD2?

 

As for plural marriage Jacob in the Book of Mormon makes it clear that monogamy is the rule and that plural marriage is the occasional exception as decreed from time to time by God.

[Scott Lloyd]

Gee, I'll only be 99 then.

 

BTW, good luck on a phone lasting 40 years. Only phone I know that lasted that long was black, had a rotary dial and hung on my mothers kitchen wall. It was put in when they bought the house in 1958 (when I was 2)  and was still there after she passed and we sold the house in 2008.

You're just a youngster. I'll have hit the century mark.

 

With the Apple iOS, you can easily migrate your programs and data as you upgrade/replace your mobile device; I presume that will continue into the next four decades. Of course, the app developer might quit supporting the app for new versions of the iOS. Hard to say what will happen.

 

But from time to time, I might give clock readings, like a morning radio DeeJay. As of this moment it's 39 years, 11 months, 3 weeks, 4 days, 3 hours, 15 minutes, 10 seconds and counting down.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

OD2 itself quotes a letter from President Kimball in which he says, "Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God's eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these our faithful brethren" etc.

 

President Kimball would never have made this strenuous and prolonged effort if the foregone conclusion was that the restriction would never be lifted.

 

Even the supposedly damning statement from Brigham Young that has been quoted on this thread makes it clear that the priesthood would one day be granted to blacks.

 

I'm puzzled by your statement. Had you never read OD2?

 

Of course I am aware of the statements concerning the end of the priesthood ban.  What I am unaware of was any reference from early leaders stating it would happen in this life.  Every statement made that I have read seemed to indicate they were anticipating it no earlier than the Millennium, as all the children of Abel had to have the opportunity first.

 

Not saying I agree with this, but I dispute your claim that early leaders allowed for change on this in mortality but no leader has ever allowed for a change to the law of chastity.  I am firmly against SSM being allowed by the Church, but I am not so convinced it will never happen.  I think our leaders DO change their minds due to social pressures, and I think Plural Marriage and the Priesthood ban are evidence of this, along with many other changes - to the temple, the garment, and others.  Societal pressure, especially from members within the Church does cause change to doctrine.

 

 

As for plural marriage Jacob in the Book of Mormon makes it clear that monogamy is the rule and that plural marriage is the occasional exception as decreed from time to time by God.

 

Not talking about the scriptures.  You had claimed that unlike SSM the early Church leaders had expected plural marriage and the priesthood ban to be lifted.  My question/confusion comes from the fact that I have not read any teachings from the early leaders to confirm that.

 

As far as plural marriage goes, whenever an early leader spoke of it ending it was along the lines of:

 

"plural marriage would end he said when the Church had gon[e] to the Devil or the Priesthood taken from this people - then God would give it to another people."  - Heber C. Kimball,  Feb 1, 1849.

Edited February 17, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course I am aware of the statements concerning the end of the priesthood ban.  What I am unaware of was any reference from early leaders stating it would happen in this life.  Every statement made that I have read seemed to indicate they were anticipating it no earlier than the Millennium, as all the children of Abel had to have the opportunity first.

 

 

 

I don't remember any statement precluding it from happening in this life, with the possible exception of the one from Brigham Young, and even that is ambiguous.

 

By contrast, there is no ambiguity in the united and unequivocal expressions from the Brethren on the law of chastity.

 

Not saying I agree with this, but I dispute your claim that early leaders allowed for change on this in mortality but no leader has ever allowed for a change to the law of chastity.  I am firmly against SSM being allowed by the Church, but I am not so convinced it will never happen.  I think our leaders DO change their minds due to social pressures, and I think Plural Marriage and the Priesthood ban are evidence of this.

 

See the quotation in my sig line from Elder Nelson.

 

By the way, can you link to or cite a primary source for the Heber C. Kimball quotation? Online I can only find it on Church-critical or anti-Mormon websites, which I don't trust.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

See the quotation in my sig line from Elder Nelson.

 

Completely agreed with Elder Nelson.  Doesn't mean that the Church won't change as it has many times before.

It is creating a false separation to go back and say that previous major changes were predicted/expected/allowed for (when they weren't) but a change to SSM or Chastity can't happen because it wasn't predicted/expected/allowed for.

 

If one can happen, so can the other.

Edited February 17, 2015 by JLHPROF

[cinepro]

You're just a youngster. I'll have hit the century mark.

 

With the Apple iOS, you can easily migrate your programs and data as you upgrade/replace your mobile device; I presume that will continue into the next four decades. Of course, the app developer might quit supporting the app for new versions of the iOS. Hard to say what will happen.

 

But from time to time, I might give clock readings, like a morning radio DeeJay. As of this moment it's 39 years, 11 months, 3 weeks, 4 days, 3 hours, 15 minutes, 10 seconds and counting down.

 

Wow.  People are never so picky as when someone makes a prophecy that they don't want to come true.  Dehlin's only mistake was putting a time frame on it.  He should have just said "soon" or "quickly" and left it at that.

[Scott Lloyd]

Completely agreed with Elder Nelson.  Doesn't mean that the Church won't change as it has many times before.

It is creating a false separation to go back and say that previous major changes were predicted/expected/allowed for (when they weren't) but a change to SSM or Chastity can't happen because it wasn't predicted/expected/allowed for.

 

If one can happen, so can the other.

Not this. See my thread about the statement from Elder Christofferson, he who critics not long ago thought would surely be the one man out of all the Brethren to be soft on the matter of the law of chastity one day changing.

 

And it is not "creating a false separation." You view things on a case by case basis, and if it was generally foregone that things would one day change, that is quite different from the matter now before us where it has been definitively stated that they won't change.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Wow.  People are never so picky as when someone makes a prophecy that they don't want to come true.  Dehlin's only mistake was putting a time frame on it.  He should have just said "soon" or "quickly" and left it at that.

He probably thought he was being careful by putting a long time frame on it. I think Dehlin and others like him are going to be disappointed long before 40 years have elapsed.

 

But I'll be happy to give clock readings from time to time. It is currently 39 years, 11 months, 3 weeks, 4 days, 2 hours, 45 minutes, 30 seconds and counting down.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[strappinglad]

According to wiki , as of Jan 1 , 2015 there were seventeen countries where SSM is legally recognized. I believe the Church operates in all of them and has temples in many of them. So far so good.

I am of the opinion that the Church could open gays to all blessings and there would be little effect on the PAIN experienced by many homosexuals. Case in point, I link to an article about LGBT people in San Francisco , which is as accepting of LGBT lifestyles as any place in the US if not the world, and yet, despite all of that overt acceptance, mental anguish still claims too many. Is there some other factor yet unexplored which is causing this pain?

http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/attempted-suicide-rates-among-sfs-lgbt-youth-could-grow-advocates-say/Content?oid=2461846

And just a small point, males of 12 years and older who had very dark skin have been able to receive the priesthood long before 1978.

[Calm]

Gee, I'll only be 99 then.

 

BTW, good luck on a phone lasting 40 years. Only phone I know that lasted that long was black, had a rotary dial and hung on my mothers kitchen wall. It was put in when they bought the house in 1958 (when I was 2)  and was still there after she passed and we sold the house in 2008.

Humm…I wonder if a postit on the side of a phone like that would not fade too much to read….I think it would, so even a phone like that no go.  I think the only viable option is Scott to tattoo it on his stomach so he can read it every time he takes a shower and thus will remember it in 2055 if he is still physically and mentally with us…and even if he is not mentally with us, his caregiver can read it for him and follow through on it as well.

Edited February 17, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

 

But from time to time, I might give clock readings, like a morning radio DeeJay. As of this moment it's 39 years, 11 months, 3 weeks, 4 days, 3 hours, 15 minutes, 10 seconds and counting down.

I hope you do this every month or so.  It would greatly help my time sense where everything seems either to have happened years ago or just a few weeks ago.  I am missing way too many play dates with my grandkids.

 

 

and that way others couldn't claim to be so annoyed with you as you were just doing a service for me….

 

such as  "it is 39 years, 10 months, 1 weeks, 2 days, 5 hours, 45 minutes, 30 seconds and counting down and what we were all looking forward to----it is time for Cal to have the tea party with her granddaughters…go out and buy those teacakes and strawberries today and get those hats done up right!

Edited February 17, 2015 by calmoriah