JAHS Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 They are not wrong, but they are definitely spitting into the wind.That brings up a good question. Of course they are not wrong about the doctrine, but are they wrong to try and keep others not of our religion from SSM. I suppose if they are God's prophets on earth it is their duty to at least warn the entire world about what God thinks of it, even if nobody listens to them. 1
california boy Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 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. That is pretty funny. The scriptures are clear????What scripture in the Book of Mormon even talks about homosexuality?What scripture in the D&C talks about homosexuality?What scripture in the Pearl of Great Price talks about homosexuality? Oh you must mean the Bible that is so clear on what is an abomination to God. That same Bible that says it is ok to sell your daughter into slavery. That same Bible that says that eating shellfish is also an abomination. That same Bible that says women shouldn't wear make up or gold jewelry. That same Bible that says sex outside of marriage is an abomination, but doesn't say anything about homosexuality within the bonds of marriage. Sorry but the scriptures are not a reliable source to know the will of God on this subject unless you are also willing to stone anyone wearing clothing from two different kinds of threads. What you mean to say is that you want the scriptures to be clear because that is what you personally want the scriptures to say about homosexuality. And you want to believe that God agrees with you. You are more than willing to ignore all the parts of the Bible you don't want to believe that God disagrees with you on. Yeah, I know, you have heard this all before. You can ignore this problem about lack of clarity concerning the will of God just as much as you ignore all the other parts of the Bible you disagree with. 4
Senator Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 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.Let me say at the outset that I believe they are not wrong either. With that said, I do not follow your reasoning here. You say, "It is not an issue of prophetic pronouncement or even "God's will", yet you turn right around and say, "Scripture tells us "neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the Lord.". How would we have the scripture if it wasn't for a prophetic pronouncement. Or, are you saying the scripture is merely pointing to an obvious, self evident fact of an eternal law? Are all eternal laws self evident? If so, why do we need prophets. 1
sethpayne Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 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. Or Adam-God. Or Blacks and the Priesthood. Or in prohibiting women from praying in Sacrament Meeting. Where will it end!!! 1
rodheadlee Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 Are all eternal laws self evident? If so, why do we need prophets.To warn us.
Tacenda Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 That is pretty funny. The scriptures are clear????What scripture in the Book of Mormon even talks about homosexuality?What scripture in the D&C talks about homosexuality?What scripture in the Pearl of Great Price talks about homosexuality?Oh you must mean the Bible that is so clear on what is an abomination to God. That same Bible that says it is ok to sell your daughter into slavery. That same Bible that says that eating shellfish is also an abomination. That same Bible that says women shouldn't wear make up or gold jewelry. That same Bible that says sex outside of marriage is an abomination, but doesn't say anything about homosexuality within the bonds of marriage. Sorry but the scriptures are not a reliable source to know the will of God on this subject unless you are also willing to stone anyone wearing clothing from two different kinds of threads. What you mean to say is that you want the scriptures to be clear because that is what you personally want the scriptures to say about homosexuality. And you want to believe that God agrees with you. You are more than willing to ignore all the parts of the Bible you don't want to believe that God disagrees with you on. Yeah, I know, you have heard this all before. You can ignore this problem about lack of clarity concerning the will of God just as much as you ignore all the other parts of the Bible you disagree with.thumbs up!
HappyJackWagon Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 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. "Eternal laws that cannot be changed..." : 1- This would limit God's agency 2- It would limit his power 3- It always strikes me as hubris to assume we have a perfect knowledge of anything because it assumes a perfect transmittal as well as a perfect reception of information. Our understanding must be absolutely PERFECT to think that it can never change. This is a lot of perfection required for anything involving human beings. You have much more confidence in human perfection than I do. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 That brings up a good question. Of course they are not wrong about the doctrine, but are they wrong to try and keep others not of our religion from SSM. I suppose if they are God's prophets on earth it is their duty to at least warn the entire world about what God thinks of it, even if nobody listens to them.Thank you for not saying, "This begs the question."
Scott Lloyd Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 Or Adam-God. Or Blacks and the Priesthood. Or in prohibiting women from praying in Sacrament Meeting. Where will it end!!! whether or not your latter two examples were wrong is not a settled matter. 2
Teancum Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 That is pretty funny. The scriptures are clear????What scripture in the Book of Mormon even talks about homosexuality?What scripture in the D&C talks about homosexuality?What scripture in the Pearl of Great Price talks about homosexuality? Oh you must mean the Bible that is so clear on what is an abomination to God. That same Bible that says it is ok to sell your daughter into slavery. That same Bible that says that eating shellfish is also an abomination. That same Bible that says women shouldn't wear make up or gold jewelry. That same Bible that says sex outside of marriage is an abomination, but doesn't say anything about homosexuality within the bonds of marriage. Sorry but the scriptures are not a reliable source to know the will of God on this subject unless you are also willing to stone anyone wearing clothing from two different kinds of threads. What you mean to say is that you want the scriptures to be clear because that is what you personally want the scriptures to say about homosexuality. And you want to believe that God agrees with you. You are more than willing to ignore all the parts of the Bible you don't want to believe that God disagrees with you on. Yeah, I know, you have heard this all before. You can ignore this problem about lack of clarity concerning the will of God just as much as you ignore all the other parts of the Bible you disagree with.The scriptures are clear on ther things people want them to be clear on. Most just don't want to be troubles by all that other noise and bothersome nonesense which is really your well put point above.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 "Eternal laws that cannot be changed..." : 1- This would limit God's agency 2- It would limit his power 3- It always strikes me as hubris to assume we have a perfect knowledge of anything because it assumes a perfect transmittal as well as a perfect reception of information. Our understanding must be absolutely PERFECT to think that it can never change. This is a lot of perfection required for anything involving human beings. You have much more confidence in human perfection than I do.1. It doesn't limit God's agency anymore than it limits man's. Man is free to choose whether or not to obey but is not free to choose the consequences of his actions. 2. God is all powerful within an eternal sphere. To violate eternal laws would corrup His holiness, divinity and glory. He cannot do that and remain God. 3. To assert or imply that we cannot have confidence in prophetic pronouncements is to deny the doctrine of revelation. To so deny it is in itself false doctrine. 2
stemelbow Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 I don't see prophets as those who warn us, only. Prophets are many things, and warning is only part of it. It seems to me holding keys is perhaps the most important reason we have prophets, but keys are just unseen inanimate objects. If they lost the keys somehow, and didn't tell us, and God didn't tell us somehow, we'd never know. Also, I have no idea how we can possibly know how wrong a prophet is, or how fallible a prophet is. It's silly to presume we can say something like "...there is a lower limit at which point we can longer call mortal men prophets" with a straight face. How could we possibly know the lower limit? 1
Teancum Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 I very much like this paragraph from the link: 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.It is a great premise. From both sides. Defenders often use prophetic fallibility arguments, just their opinion, speaking as a man not a prophet and so on when trying to defend or get out of something less savory that is difficult to defend. 1
thesometimesaint Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 It is a great premise. From both sides. Defenders often use prophetic fallibility arguments, just their opinion, speaking as a man not a prophet and so on when trying to defend or get out of something less savory that is difficult to defend. "A prophet is only a prophet when acting as such".Joseph Smith when a busybody thought the prophet was wrong to enjoy wrestling younger men.
Nofear Posted April 30, 2015 Author Posted April 30, 2015 (edited) 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.While I may not agree, I can and do appreciate the self-consistency of the position you establish for yourself. Sorry but the scriptures are not a reliable source to know the will of God on this subject unless you are also willing to stone anyone wearing clothing from two different kinds of threads. What you mean to say is that you want the scriptures to be clear because that is what you personally want the scriptures to say about homosexuality. And you want to believe that God agrees with you. You are more than willing to ignore all the parts of the Bible you don't want to believe that God disagrees with you on.I personally have no problem with one arguing that the Bible isn't 100% clear on the issue. Part of the reasoning Mormons give for the necessity of latter-day prophets.Thus the question arises in the original post: do we latter-day saints have any form of justification for not believing the repeated, essentially unanimous and unambiguous message from latter-day prophets? The fallibility of men concept, while true and applicable in places, seems to falter as rational when faced with such a consistent message. Edited April 30, 2015 by Nofear
Gray Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 While I may not agree, I can and do appreciate the self-consistency of the position you establish for yourself. I personally have no problem with one arguing that the Bible isn't 100% clear on the issue. Part of the reasoning Mormons give for the necessity of latter-day prophets.Thus the question arises in the original post: do we latter-day saints have any form of justification for not believing the repeated, essentially unanimous and unambiguous message from latter-day prophets? The fallibility of men concept, while true and applicable in places, seems to falter as rational when faced with such a consistent message. "If it is not in the standard works, you may well assume that it is speculation." Harold B. Lee
ALarson Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 2. God is all powerful within an eternal sphere. To violate eternal laws would corrup His holiness, divinity and glory. He cannot do that and remain God.Is that just your opinion, or is it recorded somewhere that there are things God could do that would have him removed?
JLHPROF Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 "Eternal laws that cannot be changed..." :1- This would limit God's agency2- It would limit his power3- It always strikes me as hubris to assume we have a perfect knowledge of anything because it assumes a perfect transmittal as well as a perfect reception of information. Our understanding must be absolutely PERFECT to think that it can never change. This is a lot of perfection required for anything involving human beings.You have much more confidence in human perfection than I do. 1. No it wouldn't. People always have the right to break laws, but never without consequence.2. God is God because he obeys law. Scripture indicates that if he were to break law he would cease to be God.3. This has 0 to do with human perfection. There are eternal laws which cannot be changed. That is existence.
JLHPROF Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 Let me say at the outset that I believe they are not wrong either. With that said, I do not follow your reasoning here. You say, "It is not an issue of prophetic pronouncement or even "God's will", yet you turn right around and say, "Scripture tells us "neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the Lord.". How would we have the scripture if it wasn't for a prophetic pronouncement. Or, are you saying the scripture is merely pointing to an obvious, self evident fact of an eternal law? The scripture is pointing to an obvious, self evident fact of the most obvious eternal law:LIFE = good / ETERNAL LIFE = very goodDEATH = bad / ETERNAL DEATH = very bad There is a litany of scripture from every conceivable angle that makes that clear on every topic. I could start listing all the principles God has revealed concerning this law. His own work is to create life. The results of sin are an end to life.Even atheistic society generally accepts this principle. Therefore a family unit incapable of creating life and misusing the tools that create life can never be good. Are all eternal laws self evident? If so, why do we need prophets. No. They are not. At least, not to me. But some are recorded.
Gray Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 Is that just your opinion, or is it recorded somewhere that there are things God could do that would have him removed? That idea is expressed in the Book of Mormon. It's an interesting idea. It points to the idea that God cannot just make up His own rules. And even that there might be something out there bigger than God and beyond God. God would not be the source of morality, just a guardian of morality. And that morality would be outside of time or space, without parts or passions etc., in some ways similar to mainstream ideas about God, but without the agency.
HappyJackWagon Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 1. No it wouldn't. People always have the right to break laws, but never without consequence. 2. God is God because he obeys law. Scripture indicates that if he were to break law he would cease to be God. 3. This has 0 to do with human perfection. There are eternal laws which cannot be changed. That is existence. 1- This is creating God in our image. We are all limited in our choices so therefore God must be as well. Agency is limited when we are limited in our choices. For example if I am given the ability to choose between having Honey on my BP sandwich, or just PB only, I have a choice, but it's an incomplete choice because it leaves out an entire realm of possibilities. We are limited in our choices but treating God in the same way based on our limited understanding is...well...limited. 3- 0 to do with the perfection of man? Can you please explain your position because that statement indicates that you don't understand mine.
HappyJackWagon Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 That idea is expressed in the Book of Mormon. It's an interesting idea. It points to the idea that God cannot just make up His own rules. And even that there might be something out there bigger than God and beyond God. God would not be the source of morality, just a guardian of morality. And that morality would be outside of time or space, without parts or passions etc., in some ways similar to mainstream ideas about God, but without the agency. Yes. I just think that if we are going to accept that position we must recognize the inconsistency with our other belief that God is omnipotent. Or can someone explain to me how God can be both omnipotent and limited at the same time?
JLHPROF Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 1- This is creating God in our image. We are all limited in our choices so therefore God must be as well. Agency is limited when we are limited in our choices. For example if I am given the ability to choose between having Honey on my BP sandwich, or just PB only, I have a choice, but it's an incomplete choice because it leaves out an entire realm of possibilities. We are limited in our choices but treating God in the same way based on our limited understanding is...well...limited.3- 0 to do with the perfection of man? Can you please explain your position because that statement indicates that you don't understand mine. 1. God has more agency than we do because God made the right choices. As discussed in the Agency thread the more wrong choices we make with our agency the less agency remains. God made all the right choices so has more agency. But he is still subject to law/consequence. He cannot get around them either. D&C 130:20-21 makes this principle clear. You may want to believe in an evangelical version of a God who exists eternally independent of everything and can do what he wants, but that is not the God of Mormonism. And for that I am extremely grateful. 3. You are assuming because we are imperfect mortals (which I agree with) that we cannot really understand any principles of eternal law. If I have that correct, then I disagree.
JLHPROF Posted April 30, 2015 Posted April 30, 2015 Yes. I just think that if we are going to accept that position we must recognize the inconsistency with our other belief that God is omnipotent. Or can someone explain to me how God can be both omnipotent and limited at the same time? Define omnipotent in the context of an infinite existence. I don't believe God to be infinitely omnipotent. But as far as the creations in his stewardship, including this one, he can do anything within the laws upon which they function. This omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent God is not my God, and I don't believe he is the God of Mormonism either.However, he is ALL three of those things where I (and the rest of mankind) is concerned. 1
Recommended Posts