Nofear Posted April 29, 2015 Posted April 29, 2015 http://discussingmarriage.org/the-objection-from-prophetic-fallibility/ Article discusses the idea whether or not the concept of prophetic fallibility is applicable to the current debate on same-sex marriage. What say you (and a relevant discussion would be germane to the arguments of the article)?
carbon dioxide Posted April 29, 2015 Posted April 29, 2015 http://discussingmarriage.org/the-objection-from-prophetic-fallibility/ Article discusses the idea whether or not the concept of prophetic fallibility is applicable to the current debate on same-sex marriage. What say you (and a relevant discussion would be germane to the arguments of the article)?Why would they be wrong on SSM. If they are wrong on that issue, they are wrong on other sins as well like adultery, premarital sex, stealing, ect.
Popular Post JLHPROF Posted April 29, 2015 Popular Post Posted April 29, 2015 No, they are not wrong.It is not an issue of prophetic pronouncement or even "God's will". It is an issue of eternal laws that cannot be altered, even by God.Scripture tells us "neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the Lord." I don't know how much clearer that can be. It requires male/female relationships to be with God.Prophetic "mistakes" have never been the issue. 8
Nofear Posted April 29, 2015 Author Posted April 29, 2015 I definitely don't think they are wrong either (even if I find cheerleading above rather unpersuasive, doesn't make it incorrect). I am mostly interested in the comments of the nay-sayers on this board.
The Nehor Posted April 29, 2015 Posted April 29, 2015 I think they are more likely wrong on the "Love your neighbor" thing. 1
Gray Posted April 29, 2015 Posted April 29, 2015 I'm not sure I understand - does having 15 church leaders agree on something make them less likely to be wrong about it? What about groupthink - are apostles immune from it? That is of course assuming that all 15 are agreed on this issue. I don't know that that's the case. 2
canard78 Posted April 29, 2015 Posted April 29, 2015 Why would they be wrong on SSM. If they are wrong on that issue, they are wrong on other sins as well like adultery, premarital sex, stealing, ect.Stealing???
Popular Post california boy Posted April 29, 2015 Popular Post Posted April 29, 2015 Gay marriage is indeed wrong for every one of them. But then, they are all straight. Celibacy rather than marriage is also wrong for each and every one of them. 6
Nofear Posted April 29, 2015 Author Posted April 29, 2015 Gay marriage is indeed wrong for every one of them. But then, they are all straight. Celibacy rather than marriage is also wrong for each and every one of them. Would you then say you were morally wrong to marry a woman or other gay people to attempt a heterosexual union, that it is morally wrong of them to enter such a union?
Alan Posted April 29, 2015 Posted April 29, 2015 Is it morally wrong to marry a women if you find that you find lots of women attractive?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 29, 2015 Posted April 29, 2015 Gay marriage is indeed wrong for every one of them. But then, they are all straight. Celibacy rather than marriage is also wrong for each and every one of them.That has nothing to do with why it is wrong. Talk about a non sequitur. 1
Mormonmaniac Posted April 29, 2015 Posted April 29, 2015 Now trending: Gay marriage debate20 years ago we would have laughed to know that would be a future debate.
Popular Post cinepro Posted April 29, 2015 Popular Post Posted April 29, 2015 (edited) Now trending: Gay marriage debate20 years ago we would have laughed to know that would be a future debate. Honestly, I'm more interested in how LDS 20 years from now will be looking at it. I taught the 16yo Sunday School class on Sunday, and in the context of the lesson, OD2 came up. I asked them what OD2 was, and most didn't know. I briefly explained why OD2 was needed, and about four of the students were incredulous. These kids are at Church every week, go to seminary, and come from pretty active families, but they just could not believe that black men couldn't have the priesthood until 1978 (I didn't mention that black men and women also couldn't be married in the Temple). I didn't want to the lesson to get totally derailed, so we moved on, but it was odd to have OD2 treated like ancient history. So I wonder what teenagers in 2040 will think when I tell them that back in 2008, our ward stood on street corners holding up signs to get try and get a law passed to ban gay marriage. Will that sound just as unbelievable? Will they laugh? Only time will tell... Edited April 29, 2015 by cinepro 7
stemelbow Posted April 29, 2015 Posted April 29, 2015 Honestly, I'm more interested in how LDS 20 years from now will be looking at it. I taught the 16yo Sunday School class on Sunday, and in the context of the lesson, OD2 came up. I asked them what OD2 was, and most didn't know. I briefly explained why OD2 was needed, and about four of the students were incredulous. These kids are at Church every week, go to seminary, and come from pretty active families, but they just could not believe that black men couldn't have the priesthood until 1978 (I didn't mention that black men and women also couldn't be married in the Temple). I didn't want to the lesson to get totally derailed, so we moved on, but it was odd to have OD2 treated like ancient history. So I wonder what teenagers in 2040 will think when I tell them that back in 2008, our ward stood on street corners holding up signs to get try and get a law passed to ban gay marriage. Will that sound just as unbelievable? Will they laugh? Only time will tell... Sure. Ask some now about their thoughts on 08 and they laugh--that was when they were tiny teeny little kids--a near lifetime ago in their minds. 1
JLHPROF Posted April 29, 2015 Posted April 29, 2015 Honestly, I'm more interested in how LDS 20 years from now will be looking at it. Well if we're lucky we'll be on our way back to Jackson County or the Savior will have returned. Either way, I doubt SSM will be part of the equation. 1
Storm Rider Posted April 29, 2015 Posted April 29, 2015 Honestly, I'm more interested in how LDS 20 years from now will be looking at it. I taught the 16yo Sunday School class on Sunday, and in the context of the lesson, OD2 came up. I asked them what OD2 was, and most didn't know. I briefly explained why OD2 was needed, and about four of the students were incredulous. These kids are at Church every week, go to seminary, and come from pretty active families, but they just could not believe that black men couldn't have the priesthood until 1978 (I didn't mention that black men and women also couldn't be married in the Temple). I didn't want to the lesson to get totally derailed, so we moved on, but it was odd to have OD2 treated like ancient history. So I wonder what teenagers in 2040 will think when I tell them that back in 2008, our ward stood on street corners holding up signs to get try and get a law passed to ban gay marriage. Will that sound just as unbelievable? Will they laugh? Only time will tell... In 475 AD they used to talk about the end of the Roman Empire and people laughed. Funny thing was that the Empire ended in 476 and no one laughed. Strange. I wonder what people will think in 2100? Heck, it will be interesting to think what those in the Terrestial Kingdom will think about the time on earth and acknowledge what they could have done to change their entire eternity. Isn't it great to think about the future and how hindsight is 20/20?
california boy Posted April 29, 2015 Posted April 29, 2015 Would you then say you were morally wrong to marry a woman or other gay people to attempt a heterosexual union, that it is morally wrong of them to enter such a union?Actually I would say it was morally wrong for me to marry a woman. When I had relations with my wife, I felt it was morally wrong for some reason and totally unnatural. Something was just not right. I also think it was morally wrong to ask someone who is straight to marry someone who is gay. My wife deserved to be with someone who she could connect with for eternity. I wasn't that person. Is all I can do is tell you what was wrong for me. Each gay person has to decide for themselves what is right and wrong for them. I would never even attempt to tell another couple what was right or wrong. If a gay person finds happiness and is at peace in a mixed orientation marriage, I only wish them the very best. 3
JLHPROF Posted April 29, 2015 Posted April 29, 2015 Actually I would say it was morally wrong for me to marry a woman. When I had relations with my wife, I felt it was morally wrong for some reason and totally unnatural. Something was just not right. I also think it was morally wrong to ask someone who is straight to marry someone who is gay. My wife deserved to be with someone who she could connect with for eternity. Brigham Young MIGHT have agreed with you.One debated quote has him saying"When a woman becomes alienated in her feelings & affections from her husband it is then his duty to give her a Bill & set her free which would be fornication for the man to cohabit with his wife after she had thus become alienated from him." I would imagine the same would apply if you were alienated in your feelings towards your wife. Better to refrain from relations that commit fornication.
Russell C McGregor Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 Excellent article. Thanks for sharing. And no, they're not wrong.
strappinglad Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 They are not wrong, but they are definitely spitting into the wind.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 (edited) I very much like this paragraph from the link: There is a limit to how fallible a prophet can be and still rightly be called a prophet. While “infallibility” is an upper limit at which point we can no longer call prophets mortal, there is a lower limit at which point we can longer call mortal men prophets. For example, at some point claims of prophetic fallibility make a prophet so fallible that it amounts to saying that that the watchman is not actually on the tower at all! Or otherwise that his fallibility is so great that the natural advantage afforded by the tower is completely nullified. We can no longer call them seers if their eyesight is so dim that they cannot properly warn us of threats from their vantage point on the tower. Those who appeal to prophetic fallibility often ignore this lower boundary, which if crossed makes the doctrine of prophets and apostles incoherent.Those who repeatedly fall back on the "prophet fallibility" mantra to rationalize their own opposition to this or that settled pronouncement in the Church are with their faultfinding trying to drown out the clarion call that comes to us from watchmen on the tower. Edited April 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 4
Damien the Leper Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 Infallibility or speaking 'ex cathedra' have no place in LDS doctrine. That belongs solely to the Vatican and only the Vatican.Do I believe the LDS authorities are wrong on the matter? No. That is because the scope and reach of their authority is limited to members of their church and not the entire world. It would be stupid to assert that the LDS church is the arbiter of what is true doctrine for the Eastern Orthodox church which has direct apostolic succession to the original twelve. Thankfully, the LDS does not assert such authority.
williamsmith Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 (edited) http://discussingmarriage.org/the-objection-from-prophetic-fallibility/ Article discusses the idea whether or not the concept of prophetic fallibility is applicable to the current debate on same-sex marriage. What say you (and a relevant discussion would be germane to the arguments of the article)? No, because the scriptures makes absolutely clear that homosexuality (and that like unto it) is a sin.There are not assumptions being made from this, the principle is clear. The only people wrong are gays and their supporters.If gays and their supporters were tolerant and wise, and if the Supreme Court is also the same, then they would know that giving rights never had and never existing before, and at the expense of others rights, is not equality, it is inequality.If all involved were inspired, they would create their own word and definition to describe their completely new type of Union, their gay union, instead of co-opting the word and definition that belongs to others that describe what they do, and is sacred to them. And that is the key delineation. The definition and the concept of marriage is sacred to heterosexuals, and it has always belonged to them and religion.For gays to then claim it as their own completely changes what it means. The only solution to be fair to all sides is for a new word and definintion be created for an activity and belief system that is also completely new.But, sadly people want what they want, and to be the same when they are not the same, and so this sadly will never happen, unless a miracle does, but the way things go with this world such as Abortion being Federally mandated and supported, doubt that the Light is going to win, and prophecy will come to pass. Edited April 30, 2015 by williamsmith 1
mfbukowski Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 http://discussingmarriage.org/the-objection-from-prophetic-fallibility/ Article discusses the idea whether or not the concept of prophetic fallibility is applicable to the current debate on same-sex marriage. What say you (and a relevant discussion would be germane to the arguments of the article)?Silly premise.If they are "wrong" by what standard should that be determined?Shoot up a rocket with a digital recorder, and ask God for an interview?The only way to know is when we see how it all plays out, and if it is changed later. 2
mfbukowski Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 Did you know that less than 2 percent of the population is gay?How many of those are Lds?http://www.google.com/#q=percentage+of+gay+people
Recommended Posts