What Do You Believe As Absolute?

[JLHPROF]

Regarding a prophet, can you find an example of a prophet in the modern church who doesn't hold the priesthood?

 

Yes, every 10 year old with a testimony of Christ, every young woman with a testimony of Christ, for that matter, every new convert with a testimony of Christ.

[will227457]

Having the priesthood is not the same thing as being ordained to an office of the priesthood.

Women in the Church have the priesthood. Little children do too, as well as people who are not members of the Church. But only men and boys past a certain age are being ordained to an office of the priesthood.

This......

 

it is a matter of policy that women are not ordained not doctrine, doctrinaly they already have it

[will227457]

Agreed.  But if they do not follow the plan they cannot expect happiness.

There is no happiness planned for those who end up in hell, but instead weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.  God doesn't expect them to be happy.

Pretty arrogant to think that if they are not on our path then they cannot be happy....

 

This is a big problem in our church

[Jeanne]

Nothing is absolute..other than your feelings for others..and that changes too. 

[JLHPROF]

Pretty arrogant to think that if they are not on our path then they cannot be happy....

 

This is a big problem in our church

 

Didn't say they cannot be happy.  But unrepentant sinners don't get to enter into God's presence, that's scriptural.  And knowing what they lose out on will not be a happy thing.

 

 

This......

 

it is a matter of policy that women are not ordained not doctrine, doctrinaly they already have it

 

Again, your opinion.  Not doctrinally correct according to my opinion.

[Sleeper Cell]

Well, that's the thing. We're applying modern LDS notions about priesthood to the Bible, but ideas about what priesthood is have not been static. It's unlikely that any of the OT prophets were understood at the time as holding any priesthood. Priesthood was for the Levites. 

 

So if we're now saying Deacon is a priesthood office, then there is strong support for women holding the priesthood in the Bible. . 

 

You miss the point.  Many women are teachers in the LDS Church. It is hardly uncommon to call them “Teachers.” Is this “strong support” for the belief that they hold the priesthood office of “Teacher?” 

 

The LDS church has, for generations, used the same exact word -- “Teacher” -- to refer both to holders of a specific priesthood office and to a church position that requires no priesthood whatsoever.  Is it so hard to believe that the NT church  might have similarly used the word “Deacon” to refer both to a priesthood and a non priesthood position?  After all, according to D&C 20,  the primary duties of a Deacon (warn, expound, exhort, and teach and invite all to come to Christ).  Many LDS women also perform these duties.

 

BTW, if ideas about priesthood have not been static, how can you use “modern” notions of “Deacon” as evidence that someone who, a couple of thousand years ago, was called a “Deacon” necessarily held the priesthood?  

 

 If we're thinking prophets must also hold priesthood, then there is even stronger support for women holding priesthood in the Bible. 

 

What direct evidence is there really for most of the figures in the Bible holding the priesthood?

 

The evidence for male vs female ordination is on pretty much equal grounds. 

For starters, two different books of scripture explicitly state that Jesus ordained the original 12 (Mark 3:14 and John 15:16).  Is there any Biblical reference that explicitly states that any woman was ever ordained?  

Edited March 20, 2015 by Sleeper Cell

[Gray]

Yes, every 10 year old with a testimony of Christ, every young woman with a testimony of Christ, for that matter, every new convert with a testimony of Christ.

 

You might call them prophets, but they are not referred to as such by the church. 

[Gray]

 

You miss the point.  Many women are teachers in the LDS Church. It is hardly uncommon to call them “Teachers.” Is this “strong support” for the belief that they hold the priesthood office of “Teacher?” 

 

The LDS church has, for generations, used the same exact word -- “Teacher” -- to refer both to holders of a specific priesthood office and to a church position that requires no priesthood whatsoever.  Is it so hard to believe that the NT church  might have similarly used the word “Deacon” to refer both to a priesthood and a non priesthood position?  After all, according to D&C 20,  the primary duties of a Deacon (warn, expound, exhort, and teach and invite all to come to Christ).  Many LDS women also perform these duties.

 

 

 

 

Well, for starters, it's unlikely that NT Christians had our modern notion of "priesthood." But that's my point - if we're defining all these ancient terms in a certain way now, it's not rational to exclude the women just because we'd prefer them not to have it. If Deacon is a priesthood office, the one and only example we have of that office anciently is Phoebe, then that's a good indication that either women can hold the priesthood or priesthood is not necessary to be a deacon. Ditto for prophets. We have two women prophets, who were also judges in Israel. Either those women held the priesthood, or the priesthood is not necessary to be a prophet or a judge in Israel. 

 

 For starters, two different books of scripture explicitly state that Jesus ordained the original 12 (Mark 3:14 and John 15:16).  Is there any Biblical reference that explicitly states that any woman was ever ordained?  

 

Yes, he ordained them. Now show me where He gave them the priesthood!

[JLHPROF]

Ok - let's return to the discussion of personal absolutes (and get off the OW kick that I allowed myself to get drawn into).

[Ahab]

This......

it is a matter of policy that women are not ordained not doctrine, doctrinaly they already have it

They already have the priesthood but they don't already have their own ordination to an office of the priesthood.

ETA: ...and I am absolutely certain about that.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Ahab

[BCSpace]

In light of several recent discussions centering around changes to the Church and its teachings and practices I have noticed I am one of very few who takes a more objective, less subjective view to these things.  That's not to say I don't believe anything can ever change, but I apparently believe far less can change than most members and still be approved by God.

 

 

In the recent Christofferson Q and A about gay marriage, he reiterated that there had been no change in doctrine.   The new 'essays' don't contain any changes in doctrine.  Whether or not the doctrine changes is all that concerns me.

[pogi]

I do believe DO NO HARM is an absolute that can exist without God.  I have read the wolf parable before. It is good food for thought.

 

I am afraid that the "do no harm" principle is not universally acknowledged, and therefore cannot be considered absolute without God.  

 

God makes principles absolute and applicable to all men whether man chooses to acknowledge them or not.  Man cannot force an absolute principle on another mans ideology if he disagrees, so without God there is only relativism. 

[Teancum]

I am afraid that the "do no harm" principle is not universally acknowledged, and therefore cannot be considered absolute without God.  

 

God makes principles absolute and applicable to all men whether man chooses to acknowledge them or not.  Man cannot force an absolute principle on another mans ideology if he disagrees, so without God there is only relativism.

What happens when your God's absolutes conflict with some other person's or religion's absolutes from their God. Certianly religious or God attributed absolutes are not consistent at all. So called God given absolutes are not universally accepted.

I think if you studies the moral development of rational non beleivers you would find "do no harm" to be fairly absolute.

[pogi]

What happens when your God's absolutes conflict with some other person's or religion's absolutes from their God. 

 

We call that a misperception on one or both parts - different limitted perspectives perhaps of the same absolute truth. 

 

I think if you studies the moral development of rational non beleivers you would find "do no harm" to be fairly absolute.

 

Atheists simply cannot defend moral absolutes.  Something cannot be "fairly" absolute.  "Do no harm" might be a moral principle for "rational non-believers", but it is not a moral principle for all living beings.  Theists and atheists alike have not held that as a moral throughout history.  For an absolute to be an absolute, it needs to be universal and unchanging.  Because God is universal and unchanging, absolutes exist, otherwise we are left with relativism. 

 

As Jeffery Dahmer famously said, “if a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?”.  Other atheists might see a point for them personally, but Dahmer's morals obviously did not align with "do no harm".  Other atheists, such as Pol Pot, did harm to others to further a greater morality.  The ends justify the means.  In an attempt to "cleanse" his country, he murdered 1.7 to 2.5 million.  

 

Theists have an equally disturbing history.  In theism however, a person or religions failure to live, apply, or even acknowledge the absolutes does not mean they do not exist. 

 

In other words, the basis of belief in God gives a basis for belief in absolute morality.

 

No belief in God, no basis for belief in absolute morality.  

Edited March 22, 2015 by pogi

[rodheadlee]

Who gets to define harm?

[JLHPROF]

In the recent Christofferson Q and A about gay marriage, he reiterated that there had been no change in doctrine.   The new 'essays' don't contain any changes in doctrine.  Whether or not the doctrine changes is all that concerns me.

 

I agree.  It is the truths restored by God and the performance he has requested from us that I don't want to see changes in.  The scriptures and prophets have been pretty clear about the results if they do.

 

But yet so many people seem to feel anything can change at any time if revelation is claimed.  I just wanted this thread to discuss things people felt COULDN'T change, to give me a better understanding of where people draw the line.

[pogi]

Who gets to define harm?

 

Exactly.

[Teancum]

We call that a misperception on one or both parts - different limitted perspectives perhaps of the same absolute truth. 

 

 

Atheists simply cannot defend moral absolutes.  Something cannot be "fairly" absolute.  "Do no harm" might be a moral principle for "rational non-believers", but it is not a moral principle for all living beings.  Theists and atheists alike have not held that as a moral throughout history.  For an absolute to be an absolute, it needs to be universal and unchanging.  Because God is universal and unchanging, absolutes exist, otherwise we are left with relativism. 

 

As Jeffery Dahmer famously said, “if a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?”.  Other atheists might see a point for them personally, but Dahmer's morals obviously did not align with "do no harm".  Other atheists, such as Pol Pot, did harm to others to further a greater morality.  The ends justify the means.  In an attempt to "cleanse" his country, he murdered 1.7 to 2.5 million.  

 

Theists have an equally disturbing history.  In theism however, a person or religions failure to live, apply, or even acknowledge the absolutes does not mean they do not exist. 

 

In other words, the basis of belief in God gives a basis for belief in absolute morality.

 

No belief in God, no basis for belief in absolute morality.  

 

Perhaps  atheists don't have absolutes. I am new to the study of morals and ethics without God given mandates I will admit.

 

Your use if Dahmer and Pol Pot are really ludicrous extremes.  Please! 

 

Should I point to Hitler who at least claimed to be a Christian?  How about the blood and horror perpetrated by many Popes throughout the middle ages?  What about extreme Islam?  Should a theist be held to account for those extremes?  Extreme Islam thinks God wants them to murder infidels which includes Mormons.  Does that make all Islam or religion evil?

 

No honest moral atheist thinks or claims that because there is not an absolute supernatural power that morals and ethics are not critical and important to apply for humans to interact.  They just don't say do it because some ancient text says GOD SAYS SO.

Theists do have a disturbing history of very un-absolute morals.  Do you think Joseph Smith who claimed to be God's mouthpiece had absolute morals based on the letter he wrote Nancy Rigdon in order to persuade her to marry him?  I think not.... no not one whit.  And the difference between the atheist and JS is at least the atheist is not saying do what I say because God told me so.  Big difference.

[Teancum]

Who gets to define harm?

 

 

People make such determinisms based on societal norms.

Who gets to define them when God says so?  Unless he is here telling us you have to trust some untrustworthy human.

[Teancum]

Exactly.

  Ok

 

Which God gets to define the absolute morals and rules?  Please let me know.

[JLHPROF]

  Ok

 

Which God gets to define the absolute morals and rules?  Please let me know.

 

The only true and living God.

(And not even Him, since He operates under eternal laws that never change).

Edited March 22, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Teancum]

The only true and living God.

 

 

Don't be coy.  Who has access to that God.  The LDS Church?  Well 99.9% of the rest of the religious world disagrees. 

 

So which God?  Where is this True and Living God?

[pogi]

Perhaps  atheists don't have absolutes. 

 

They don't

 

Your use if Dahmer and Pol Pot are really ludicrous extremes.  Please! 

 

Should I point to Hitler who at least claimed to be a Christian?  How about the blood and horror perpetrated by many Popes throughout the middle ages?  What about extreme Islam?  Should a theist be held to account for those extremes?  Extreme Islam thinks God wants them to murder infidels which includes Mormons.  Does that make all Islam or religion evil?

 

No honest moral atheist thinks or claims that because there is not an absolute supernatural power that morals and ethics are not critical and important to apply for humans to interact.  They just don't say do it because some ancient text says GOD SAYS SO.

Theists do have a disturbing history of very un-absolute morals.  Do you think Joseph Smith who claimed to be God's mouthpiece had absolute morals based on the letter he wrote Nancy Rigdon in order to persuade her to marry him?  I think not.... no not one whit.  And the difference between the atheist and JS is at least the atheist is not saying do what I say because God told me so.  Big difference.

 

Perhaps I am not making myself clear.  I am not suggesting that atheists are amoral, or even less moral than theists.  I am only suggesting that they have no foundation for a "belief" in absolute morality, while theists do have such a foundation.  Yes, my examples were extreme, but they were used to clearly demonstrate how non-absolute the "no harm" moral is among atheists. 

 

Note that I said "belief" in absolute morality and not "proof" of absolute morality.  

 

People make such determinisms based on societal norms.

 

Exactly, it is determine by people and social norms, which are not universal and unchanging and therefore cannot be absolute. 

 

 Which God gets to define the absolute morals and rules?  Please let me know.

 

Whichever God you believe in - so long as your God is universal, unchanging, and omniscient. 

 

My argument is simply that theists have a foundation for  "belief in" absolute morality while atheists have no such foundation. 

Edited March 22, 2015 by pogi

[Teancum]

Pogi

Based on the historical track record of people relying on absolutes from their god that they think is universal, unchanging and omniscient I have no confidence in basing morals on the many Gods of the religions of the world.

There,is no such thing in the human religions of the world as an unchanging God. Based on my example above Jospeh Smith did not believe in such a god,

[Sleeper Cell]

People make such determinisms [defining "harm ']  based on societal norms.

 

If the definition of “harm” depends on societal norms (i.e., is not an absolute) , how can “do no harm” be a moral absolute? Isn’t that sort of like saying “do the right thing” is a moral absolute?  

Edited March 22, 2015 by Sleeper Cell