Eternal Same-Gender Procreation

[JLHPROF]

This makes no sense. You're saying that we accept revelation as long as it doesn't reveal anything new.

 

If the prophet will only reveal what we already know then he's not much use.

 

Not at all.

The prophet can reveal ADDITIONAL information.

For example, he can teach you multiplication and division when all you've ever known was addition and subtraction.

What he can't do is change the rules by which addition and subtraction operate.

[CV75]

So let me state the obvious:

Despite the nuances found within any individual relationship, all x-sexual relationships by definition have an erotic component that may or may not be realized in the flesh. But that is beside the point of how any familial relationship transitions by covenant into an eternal relationship. However it got started long before the foundation of the world, the human family comprised of men and women had to have been generated by a Male-Female couple in order to perpetuate two equal and opposite genders/sexes.

The Church’s recognition of the non-procreative benefits of physical intimacy does not mean that these blessings through this means are not also exclusive to the divinely authorized marriage covenant. Most certainly exaltation entails all the blessings. But by extension, the Church recognizes that in this world, not all human procreation necessitates or involves an erotic experience.

[HappyJackWagon]

Not at all.

The prophet can reveal ADDITIONAL information.

For example, he can teach you multiplication and division when all you've ever known was addition and subtraction.

What he can't do is change the rules by which addition and subtraction operate.

Ok. Thanks for the clarification.

 

So he could reveal information that adds on to what we already know about eternal marriage and the organization of families in the eternities?

[JLHPROF]

Ok. Thanks for the clarification.

 

So he could reveal information that adds on to what we already know about eternal marriage and the organization of families in the eternities?

 

Yes, but he cannot contradict any previously revealed laws or truths.  If there are no previously revealed truths on a subject there is also no contradiction.

But God doesn't change what is true to suit us so to expect any changes to a previous truth is foolish.

 

If the prophet could literally receive revelation to change ANY doctrine and we accept it, we could all end up as Buddhists....not that I have anything against Buddhists.

 

 

and I know where you are going as far as SSM goes.  The argument that we have no revelation on SSM is a specious one.  The fact that God's revelations on marriage don't allow for it should be revelation enough.  God isn't in the habit of forgetting to tell us things.

 

God: Ok, here is my revelation on how eternal marriage works.  You take a man and a woman and seal them together for eternity.

....

.... a couple centuries pass, mortal society changes what it accepts

....

God: Ok, I know I said repeatedly marriage was between a man and a woman but I forgot to tell you that I am also ok if it's between two men or two women.  (Or I changed my mind and I am all for same gender marriages).

 

Not going to happen.  God has never allowed for SSM because he can't, not because he won't.

Edited February 26, 2015 by JLHPROF

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Yes, but he cannot contradict any previously revealed laws or truths.  If there are no previously revealed truths on a subject there is also no contradiction.

But God doesn't change what is true to suit us so to expect any changes to a previous truth is foolish.

But wouldn't the process of God correcting false doctrine that was taught by the church or leaders seem like a contradiction, when in fact all he was doing was correcting fallicies?

 

At one time the prophet taught as doctrine Adam/God theory. It has been revealed that this was incorrect. So was God contradicting himself or correcting false doctrine?

 

At one time Blacks were taught to be less valiant in the premortal life relegating them to a life without priesthood and temple blessings. These teachings have been disavowed. Was God contradicting himself or was he correcting false doctrine?

 

My obvious point here is that what we believe is immutable truth still passes through human minds before it is shared. What we believe is God's pure truth and will are actually just incomplete shadows of his truth and will. Acknowledging the fallibility of prophets it seems reasonable to accept the possibility that they are wrong on other issues that God will later correct. If we don't accept that possibility we must believe the prophets, apostles and scriptures to be perfect. Otherwise it can be corrected, even in ways that surprise us.

[JLHPROF]

But wouldn't the process of God correcting false doctrine that was taught by the church or leaders seem like a contradiction, when in fact all he was doing was correcting fallicies?

 

At one time the prophet taught as doctrine Adam/God theory. It has been revealed that this was incorrect. So was God contradicting himself or correcting false doctrine?

 

At one time Blacks were taught to be less valiant in the premortal life relegating them to a life without priesthood and temple blessings. These teachings have been disavowed. Was God contradicting himself or was he correcting false doctrine?

 

My obvious point here is that what we believe is immutable truth still passes through human minds before it is shared. What we believe is God's pure truth and will are actually just incomplete shadows of his truth and will. Acknowledging the fallibility of prophets it seems reasonable to accept the possibility that they are wrong on other issues that God will later correct. If we don't accept that possibility we must believe the prophets, apostles and scriptures to be perfect. Otherwise it can be corrected, even in ways that surprise us.

 

I totally get what you are saying, and I know many agree with you.

The issue then becomes that anything can be changed.  We could throw out the atonement, disown the Book of Mormon, cease baptizing, eliminate the need for a marriage altogether.  ANYTHING could be altered.

 

It is more than just a scary prospect, it makes religion a pointless endeavor.

[HappyJackWagon]

I totally get what you are saying, and I know many agree with you.

The issue then becomes that anything can be changed.  We could throw out the atonement, disown the Book of Mormon, cease baptizing, eliminate the need for a marriage altogether.  ANYTHING could be altered.

 

It is more than just a scary prospect, it makes religion a pointless endeavor.

I agree. It is a scary prospect. But if we accept the fallibilty of prophets don't we have to acknowledge the possibility that some of the truths we hold dear may end up being incomplete or wrong?

 

Also, I would argue that these kind of substantial changes, while scary, would not render religion pointless. Why? Because religion helps us to live better lives. Hopefully religion is helping us to be more charitable, more compassionate, and less judgemental. It guides us to be better people. There is value in that alone. And I think God would be happy with our efforts and the change we undergo through religious devotion, regardless of whether or not we have everything figured out correctly. I think this will be the reason why he will judge our hearts, not necessarily every action as they could be based on incorrect or incomplete belief.

[JLHPROF]

I agree. It is a scary prospect. But if we accept the fallibilty of prophets don't we have to acknowledge the possibility that some of the truths we hold dear may end up being incomplete or wrong?

 

Also, I would argue that these kind of substantial changes, while scary, would not render religion pointless. Why? Because religion helps us to live better lives. Hopefully religion is helping us to be more charitable, more compassionate, and less judgemental. It guides us to be better people. There is value in that alone. And I think God would be happy with our efforts and the change we undergo through religious devotion, regardless of whether or not we have everything figured out correctly. I think this will be the reason why he will judge our hearts, not necessarily every action as they could be based on incorrect or incomplete belief.

 

Sure, but under the "anything can change" idea, eventually a doctrinal change could make us less compassionate, less charitable (hey, maybe charity ISN'T the pure love of Christ), more judgemental.

It makes religion pointless because anything you believe is subject to change, so you might as well believe nothing.  Nothing is actually true if any truth can be altered.

 

I think a line has to be drawn.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I think a line has to be drawn.

 

I agree. We all draw our lines in different places so it's important to remember that we are consciously drawing a line as a matter of will, hope, and faith, not as an ultimate infallible truth.

[CV75]

About drawing lines:

I think too much is made of our leaders’ fallibility. All things considered, they rely upon the Lord just as we do and so any propensity to err by any of us called to participate in the latter-day work of the Church is of relative none-effect; the Lord’s work proceeds and he will get it done. Should our leaders rely even more upon the Lord than we do from day to day (and of this many people attest who know and speak about them), their relative fallibility would enter the realm of relative reliability.

I also think too much is assumed of a cause and effect relationship between fallibility and change. The Fall enables change from good to bad; the Atonement enables change from bad to good. Fallible beings are all equal recipients of both, and the reliability of the doctrine of Christ (which includes the calling of disciples to lead the saints and implement changes according to His will) is as great as it can be among fallible people.

So I think we can rely on our leaders when they say something won’t change, even if we, in our own fallibility or fallible assessment of theirs, think it might, could or will. The spirit with which we participate in the latter-day work of the Church (referencing the doctrine of Christ) and the process we use to participate (referencing the councils) is key to how reliable our individual stance is.

[HappyJackWagon]

About drawing lines:

I think too much is made of our leaders’ fallibility. All things considered, they rely upon the Lord just as we do and so any propensity to err by any of us called to participate in the latter-day work of the Church is of relative none-effect; the Lord’s work proceeds and he will get it done. Should our leaders rely even more upon the Lord than we do from day to day (and of this many people attest who know and speak about them), their relative fallibility would enter the realm of relative reliability.

I also think too much is assumed of a cause and effect relationship between fallibility and change. The Fall enables change from good to bad; the Atonement enables change from bad to good. Fallible beings are all equal recipients of both, and the reliability of the doctrine of Christ (which includes the calling of disciples to lead the saints and implement changes according to His will) is as great as it can be among fallible people.

So I think we can rely on our leaders when they say something won’t change, even if we, in our own fallibility or fallible assessment of theirs, think it might, could or will. The spirit with which we participate in the latter-day work of the Church (referencing the doctrine of Christ) and the process we use to participate (referencing the councils) is key to how reliable our individual stance is.

Interesting points yet there is no foundation for the piece I bolded. Yes, they are fallible just like we are. Because of our fallibiliity I wouldn't trust any person, church leader or not, who claims to know the will of God perfectly. I just don't see that as a possibility. To me that is putting our trust in the arm of the flesh.

 

This is akin to saying "I know my leaders make mistakes but so do I so I'll trust everything they tell me." It's illogical.

Edited February 26, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[JLHPROF]

Interesting points yet there is no foundation for the piece I bolded. Yes, they are fallible just like we are. Because of our fallibiliity I wouldn't trust any person, church leader or not, who claims to know the will of God perfectly. I just don't see that as a possibility. To me that is putting our trust in the arm of the flesh.

 

I think you should go read the story of Israel Barlow again....

[HappyJackWagon]

I don't know the story of Israel Barlow but I can't open that link. Can you summarize?

[JLHPROF]

I don't know the story of Israel Barlow but I can't open that link. Can you summarize?

 

Israel Barlow was a man known for never having used a whip on his horses.  In that time the common way to command your horses was to crack a whip, but Israel did not want to do this and liked to lead his horses without a whip.

When the Saints began work on the Nauvoo Temple Israel was one of the men that carried stone from the quarry to the temple ground.  This process involved men at the quarry blasting of great slabs of rock wich were then loaded into a wagon.  The driver of the wagon takes the rock slab to the temple site where more men unload it and put it in place.  Israel's was one of the numerous men that took his wagon along the road inbetween the quarry and temple.

On one such occasion, while Israel was in line waiting to load his wagon with stone, the Prophet Joseph Smith approached him and said, "Israel, on your next trip, stop and buy yourself a buggy whip."  Brother Barlow did not like the idea of doing so because he did not want to use a whip on his horses, but he agreed nonetheless to do as the Prophet had asked.  On his next trip into town he purchased the buggy whip and placed it in the wagon without the intention of using it.

Israel Barlow returned to the quarry and filled his wagon with another load of stone.  In order to leave the quarry the wagon-driver had to back the wagon up the road until he could turn again down the right road to town.  The horses of Brother Barlow backed up as usual but when he gave his "Whoa," to stop them they would not stop.  Looking behind him Israel realized that he had to stop his horses or he would fall off the edge of the quarry.  He continued to shout "Whoa!" but the horses refused to listen.  In a final attempt to stop the horses Israel grabbed the whip and cracked it above the heads of the horses.  Because these horses had never heard a buggy whip like this before they instantly stopped, just before the edge of the quarry.

[HappyJackWagon]

JLHPROF, thanks for sharing that story. I hadn't heard it before. It really doesn't change my argument though. For every faith promoting example (that some would call a coincidence) that turns out positively we have examples of prophets and apostles making declarations that are trusted yet just don't turn out as advertised.

 

See the example of the Sister Missionary who was promised her family would be safe while she served her mission. Her entire family died while she served. That apostolic promise was unrealized yet the sister now views it as having been fulfilled because they are safer now on the other side than they ever would be in mortality. Really? Yikes. These kinds of examples just aren't compelling evidence for me and I see them as a form of sign seeking.

 

http://www.ldsliving.com/story/78124-missionary-whose-family-died-while-she-served-reflects-on-tragedy-one-year-later

[CV75]

Interesting points yet there is no foundation for the piece I bolded. Yes, they are fallible just like we are. Because of our fallibiliity I wouldn't trust any person, church leader or not, who claims to know the will of God perfectly. I just don't see that as a possibility. To me that is putting our trust in the arm of the flesh.

 

This is akin to saying "I know my leaders make mistakes but so do I so I'll trust everything they tell me." It's illogical.

Not at all. It is akin to saying, "I know my leaders make mistakes and so do I; the Lord has set them apart to lead and He trusts them to do so in relative accordance with His will and doctrine, and He trusts the faithful to follow in accordance with His will and doctrine, so everything they tell me is relatively more reliable for His intents and purposes than anything I can put forth for His kingdom outside the councils He directs.”

 

The foundation of their relative reliability is simply based on how the doctrine of Christ is structured, the druthers of fallible followers who struggle with it notwithstanding.

[Pahoran]

It is obvious that current LDS leadership promote the idea that LDS doctrine will never change to embrace same-sex relationships. However, there is often much discussion among those of us that are younger, speculating on the possibility that that could change sometime in the future.

"Those of us" what? Ex-Mormons?

 

The thinking seems to be that previous generations held similar beliefs about other doctrinal aspects that at the time, seemed unchangeable, but that revelation altered the church's stance in later years.

Such "thinking" is rather heavily misinformed.

President Hinckley -- in a public statement, not a private letter of doubtful provenance -- committed the Church to standing firm on the issue of "same sex marriage." He even said that we would continue to stand firm "even if we end up standing alone."

We are not going to resile from that, and only the most invincibly ignorant or unrepentantly wicked would ever want us to.

Just so you know.

 

There definitely seems to be a generational divide among church members on the issue of the possibility that the church may, at some future date, under a different prophet and quorum of apostles, reveal that God may allow for eternal same-gender relationships.

"Seems to be" is rather a heavy let down from "definitely." So is there a definite "generational divide," or does there merely "seem to be" one?

And how sure are you that that seeming is entirely uninfluenced by your own wishful thinking?

Not too long ago, the libertine clique were imaginatively co-opting Elder Christofferson as their mole in the Quorum of the Twelve.

Now that he's scotched that notion -- and earned the vilification of the vile along the way -- you're banking on your ability to corrupt the morals of the rising generation.

But here's the thing: I don't see the "generational divide" you think you see.

I see a "faithfulness divide." MINO's, fringe Mormons, "NOM's," and other surrendering or quisling Mormons, who really have no principles and don't stand for anything, regardless of their ages, are willing to throw the prophets, the scriptures, the Plan of Salvation and revealed doctrine generally under the bus in order to curry favour with the wicked.

While the pure in heart, and the wise, and the noble, and the virtuous -- regardless of their ages -- are repelled, repulsed and disgusted by the notion that the Kingdom of God should accommodate Sodom.

Regards,

Pahoran

[carbon dioxide]

This makes no sense. You're saying that we accept revelation as long as it doesn't reveal anything new.

 

If the prophet will only reveal what we already know then he's not much use.

New revelation builds on previous revelation but it does not blow the old revelation up.  For example by revelation we know that God the Father and the Son has a body of flesh and bones.  A new revelation that says they do not have a body of flesh and bones is not possible.  It would make God a liar and we could never trust any revelation from God as it would always be suspect.

[carbon dioxide]

 

At one time the prophet taught as doctrine Adam/God theory. It has been revealed that this was incorrect. So was God contradicting himself or correcting false doctrine?

Brigham Young gave his opinion on an issue like any prophet is allowed.  However by the mouth of two or three witnesses is every word established.  The Church never endorsed his opinion.  It never made his opinion doctrine in the Church.  There is no evidence that the Adam God is a revelation from God.  Perhaps it is but maybe it is not.  No member has ever been required to believe or accept it. 

[carbon dioxide]

I agree. It is a scary prospect. But if we accept the fallibilty of prophets don't we have to acknowledge the possibility that some of the truths we hold dear may end up being incomplete or wrong?

 

Also, I would argue that these kind of substantial changes, while scary, would not render religion pointless. Why? Because religion helps us to live better lives. Hopefully religion is helping us to be more charitable, more compassionate, and less judgemental. It guides us to be better people. There is value in that alone. And I think God would be happy with our efforts and the change we undergo through religious devotion, regardless of whether or not we have everything figured out correctly. I think this will be the reason why he will judge our hearts, not necessarily every action as they could be based on incorrect or incomplete belief.

A prophet can be wrong.  Can all the prophets be wrong from Adam to today on the same subject?  Highly doubt it.  At some point God is going to correct the problem.

Edited February 27, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[HappyJackWagon]

Brigham Young gave his opinion on an issue like any prophet is allowed.  However by the mouth of two or three witnesses is every word established.  The Church never endorsed his opinion.  It never made his opinion doctrine in the Church.  There is no evidence that the Adam God is a revelation from God.  Perhaps it is but maybe it is not.  No member has ever been required to believe or accept it. 

No. It can't be wiped away that simply. Adam/God was a part of the endowment ceremony for many years. This was not a teaching with limited impact. Similarly, it could be viewed that the teaching plural marriage was a requirement for celestial glory has been blown up. We don't teach that at all any more.

[HappyJackWagon]

A prophet can be wrong.  Can all the prophets be wrong from Adam to today on the same subject?  Highly doubt it.  At some point God is going to correct the problem.

All the prophets from Brigham Young to Spencer Kimball were wrong about teaching the inferiority of blacks, so this argument doesn't work for me. In a conservative church, like judaism or mormonism there is great emphasis placed on tradition so it doesn't surprise me at all that negative tradtions could be carried on for many generations.

[HappyJackWagon]

New revelation builds on previous revelation but it does not blow the old revelation up.  For example by revelation we know that God the Father and the Son has a body of flesh and bones.  A new revelation that says they do not have a body of flesh and bones is not possible.  It would make God a liar and we could never trust any revelation from God as it would always be suspect.

Except that according to the first revelation on the first vision, written in Joseph's own hand, God didn't have a body of flesh and bone. That developed later. The lectures on faith also describe God as a spirit. This was part of the Book of Commandments. It was the Doctrine in the D&C. Understanding changes all the time, otherwise we would be polygamists who don't allow blacks to hold the priesthood and believe that God is a spirit. Those teachings have all been blown up.

[CV75]

Understanding changes all the time

You say (in a previous post along this most recent chain) you don’t trust any person who claims to know the will of God perfectly. I don’t see where any of our leaders claim that they do, and that is not their role (see 3 Nephi 11). You don’t know the will of God perfectly either, but there are obviously some points that you know perfectly enough, and there is no point that you have the Lord’s support in contending with the leaders about (see 3 Nephi 11).

 

So everyone's understanding changes over time.

 

Elder Holland’s promise and the zone leader’s blessing were not advertised to be fulfilled in only one way. Those with eyes to see will see, as this sister did and the unexpected way the promise and the blessing were fulfilled served as a fulcrum for her growth in spiritual understanding. Call her conclusion rationalizing if you will, but there was no spelling out of fulfilment, only a promise and a blessing to be fulfilled in the Lord’s way.

 

But everyone's understanding may differ in the meantime.

 

Now obviously it is impossible to contend with dead prophets, and obviously there is no reason to contend against teachings that have been replaced. All one can reasonably contend with is the living prophets and their teachings. The basis for such contention and disputation is not the fallibility of faithful leaders and followers, but a threshold lack of present understanding and application of the various elements of the doctrine of Christ (see 3 Nephi 11).

[HappyJackWagon]

 

You say (in a previous post along this most recent chain) you don’t trust any person who claims to know the will of God perfectly. I don’t see where any of our leaders claim that they do

But this is exactly what they are doing when they make bold statements about how certain things, like gay marriage, will never change. If they can never change they must be claiming to have a perfect understanding of God's will. This is the problem.

 

 

Elder Holland’s promise and the zone leader’s blessing were not advertised to be fulfilled in only one way.

I have become much more cynical because of these types of claims/answers. Claiming that a blessing of safety is fullfilled because the family died and is therefore incapable of dying again is beyond ludicrous. It is absolutly a rationalization.

 

I would prefer they just say, "I was wrong. I didn't understand the will of God like I thought." It's that simple. It's reasonable. Instead we rationalize crazy explanations for why safety really means death.