Are Lds Prophets Wrong On Same Sex Marriage?

[Gray]

 

 

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?

 

When I was on my mission another Elder made the argument that God was not omnipotent. I couldn't counter his arguments but I still disagreed with him at the time. But now I think he was consistent with the LDS teachings generally. 

[Damien the Leper]

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.

Let's first acknowledge, as David Bokovoy has, that LDS prophets are not the same thing as biblical prophets. If we can start with this logical observation then we can move forward.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

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.

So in Mormonism we don't need God to be ALL powerful, we just need him to be powerful enough.

ETA: Perhaps when we refer to God as omnipotent we should include an asterisk. *All powerful in the ways we want him to be, but not in an infinite sense.

Edited April 30, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Damien the Leper]

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.

God is the author of law and is not subject to discipline of any other "gods". Just to be clear.

[ALarson]

God is the author of law and is not subject to discipline of any other "gods". Just to be clear.

So then when Scott Lloyd stated above, "To violate eternal laws would corrup His holiness, divinity and glory. He cannot do that and remain God.", who will remove God or cause Him to not "remain God"?

[Damien the Leper]

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.

The omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent God is the God of Christianity. God exists outside time and space and is not bound by human flaw, science or laws. He's better than that.

[Damien the Leper]

So then when Scott Lloyd stated above, "To violate eternal laws would corrup His holiness, divinity and glory. He cannot do that and remain God.", who will remove God or cause Him to not "remain God"?

No being has that authority over God. There's no divine family tree to keep him in check.

[ERayR]

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.

 

Yep it sure is.  Question:  How do you know when a prophet is only giving his own pinion?

                        Answer:  When he disagrees with you.

[JLHPROF]

God is the author of law and is not subject to discipline of any other "gods". Just to be clear.

 

Disagree.

[JLHPROF]

No being has that authority over God. There's no divine family tree to keep him in check.

 

Disagree.

[JLHPROF]

The omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent God is the God of Christianity. God exists outside time and space and is not bound by human flaw, science or laws. He's better than that.

 

Yes, I said that.  That is the God of traditional Christianity.

[Damien the Leper]

Yes, I said that.  That is the God of traditional Christianity.

That is not merely the God Christianity but THE only God of all Christendom.

[JLHPROF]

Ok, I get where Valentinus is coming from.

But Mormonism has different teachings on God.  Why are so many members trying to make God into the traditional Christian version?

 

MORMONISM (whether official or not)

There is a council of Gods.

Our Heavenly Father is one of these Gods.  He has stewardships over which he is the head.

These Gods operate according to eternal law, not their own personal whims.

They are accountable to law else they would cease to be God.

All Gods were once mortal men on an earth.  The progressed to Godhood by following law.

They are all powerful over their stewardships.

God is eternal in that he has been God since the beginning of his creations and will be God over them to all eternity.

 

I know Valentinus and other traditional Christians don't agree.  But this is not wild doctrine for Mormonism.

[Damien the Leper]

Disagree.

That's neat.

[Damien the Leper]

Disagree.

Show to me otherwise in the Bible or BoM? A "Nuh uh! Modern revelation says..." is insufficient and will be rejected outright.

[Damien the Leper]

Ok, I get where Valentinus is coming from.

But Mormonism has different teachings on God.  Why are so many members trying to make God into the traditional Christian version?

 

MORMONISM (whether official or not)

There is a council of Gods.

Our Heavenly Father is one of these Gods.  He has stewardships over which he is the head.

These Gods operate according to eternal law, not their own personal whims.

They are accountable to law else they would cease to be God.

All Gods were once mortal men on an earth.  The progressed to Godhood by following law.

They are all powerful over their stewardships.

God is eternal in that he has been God since the beginning of his creations and will be God over them to all eternity.

 

I know Valentinus and other traditional Christians don't agree.  But this is not wild doctrine for Mormonism.

I believe someone cited Harold B. Lee saying, "If it's not in the scriptures then it's speculation." Forgive me if I misquoted.

[JLHPROF]

I believe someone cited Harold B. Lee saying, "If it's not in the scriptures then it's speculation." Forgive me if I misquoted.

 

No, he probably said that.  Doesn't exactly jive with "continuing revelation" or "restoration of all things" though.

Scriptures are the standard, but not the end.

And most of what I said is alluded to in Moses and Abraham.

[Gray]

No, he probably said that.  Doesn't exactly jive with "continuing revelation" or "restoration of all things" though.

Scriptures are the standard, but not the end.

And most of what I said is alluded to in Moses and Abraham.

 

Kind of a catch 22 in this case. 

[JLHPROF]

Show to me otherwise in the Bible or BoM? A "Nuh uh! Modern revelation says..." is insufficient and will be rejected outright.

 

I am not going to argue traditional Christian notions vs modern Revelation.

Suffice it to say my belief in God matches what Joseph taught in the King Follett.

I find no contradiction in scripture, but other interpretations of scripture do.

[Scott Lloyd]

Is that just your opinion, or is it recorded somewhere that there are things God could do that would have him removed?

It's my understanding based upon scripture and gospel principles.

 

Is it recorded in scripture somewhere that violation of eternal laws is consistent with God's nature and divinity?

 

Edited to add:

 

Consider these scriptural passages:

 

 

22 But there is a law given, and a ^apunishment affixed, and a ^brepentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the ^claw, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

 23 But God ceaseth not to be God, and ^amercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the ^batonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the ^cresurrection of the dead; and the ^dresurrection of the dead bringeth ^eback men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be ^fjudged according to their works, according to the law and justice.

 24 For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also ^amercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved.

 25 What, do ye suppose that ^amercy can rob ^bjustice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.

 26 And thus God bringeth about his great and eternal ^apurposes, which were prepared ^bfrom the foundation of the world. And thus cometh about the salvation and the redemption of men, and also their destruction and misery.

 

From Alma 42.

 

 

19 And if there were ^amiracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you he ^bchangeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles.

 

From Mormon 9:19

Edited April 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Nofear]

"If it is not in the standard works, you may well assume that it is speculation." Harold B. Lee

Seems there is some variation of opinion about this.

 

I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living oracles and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: “You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.” When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, “Brother Brigham I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the written oracles and the written word of God.” Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: “There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day.” “And now,” said he, “when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.” That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: “Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.” (Conference Report, October 1897, p.22)

But perhaps Pres. Benson's comments are the most germane:

 

We are admonished to “seek out of the best books words of wisdom” (D&C 88:118). Surely these books must include the scriptures. Alongside them must be the words of the Presidents of the Church. The Lord said of the President of the Church, “His word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth” (D&C 21:5). These books make up what has been referred to as “the Lord’s library”—namely the standard works and the various volumes that contain the words of the different Presidents of the Church. Of the latter volumes, that which would be of greatest importance to you would be the words of the current President of the Church, for his words are directed to our day and our needs. (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.137-138)

It is the teachings of the living prophets which is first and foremost in importance. I think that is the position I'll take.

[Scott Lloyd]

God is the author of law and is not subject to discipline of any other "gods". Just to be clear.

 

 

So then when Scott Lloyd stated above, "To violate eternal laws would corrup His holiness, divinity and glory. He cannot do that and remain God.", who will remove God or cause Him to not "remain God"?

 

 

No being has that authority over God. There's no divine family tree to keep him in check.

What I said is scripturally sound. See my Book of Mormon quotations two posts above this one.

 

I will add further that eternal laws are co-eternal with God, just as intelligences are.

 

So is matter. It can not be created, only combined with other matter as a building element.

 

There is no such thing ex nihilo creation.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Damien the Leper]

I am not going to argue traditional Christian notions vs modern Revelation.

Suffice it to say my belief in God matches what Joseph taught in the King Follett.

I find no contradiction in scripture, but other interpretations of scripture do.

And you cite a non-doctrinal sermon to justify your argument. Not very well nuanced.

[JLHPROF]

And you cite a non-doctrinal sermon to justify your argument. Not very well nuanced.

 

Religion is a personal belief.  Always will be, no matter what Church you belong to.

Not all of my beliefs follow Church doctrine.  And "non-doctrinal" is a meaningless term.  There is a lot of doctrine in the KFD.

If you mean non-canonical or non-official then I agree.  My arguing my personal beliefs is sufficient for me and I'm not trying to nuance you into agreeing with me.

Edited April 30, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Nofear]

So far the only argument that I've seen* that the modern prophet's consistent and repeated message is, "There argument isn't based in my interpretation of the scriptures and so it's not important." I confess finding this line of rhetoric... unpersuasive.

 

 

* california boy does have a different perspective and approach. While interesting it is ultimately one that assumes zero authority from the Church's prophets and so in a different category.