Are Lds Prophets Wrong On Same Sex Marriage?

[Damien the Leper]

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.

God can do anything he wants. I wont confine him to "eternal laws" that are unsubstantiated by scripture. But I also won't limit him to to what is said about him in scripture. For me, God is greater and so much more than scripture or modern revelation

[Damien the Leper]

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.

Consisting doctrine and to be doctrinal are two very different things.

This reminds me of a Christian apologetics podcast where McKay V. Jones used a gnostic tractate to defend LDS teaching. I'd have to go back and re-listen but it is as equally confusing as your statements.

[Scott Lloyd]

God can do anything he wants. I wont confine him to "eternal laws" that are unsubstantiated by scripture. But I also won't limit him to to what is said about him in scripture. For me, God is greater and so much more than scripture or modern revelation

You are entitled to your opinion, but let it be known that opinion is not consistent with the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ that God will not reveal falsehood to His children.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Damien the Leper]

You are entitled to your opinion, but let it be known that opinion is not consistent with the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ that God will reveal falsehood to His children.

I have no interest the Bickertonite opinion on the matter. Doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ or the doctrines of the LDS church are not necessarily synonymous with the will of God no matter the claims.

[Gray]

Seems there is some variation of opinion about this.

 

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

 

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

 

Like I said, catch 22. President Lee was once a living prophet. 

 

In the end there is no systematic or consistent way to determine what is and what is not the "official and correct" way to approach doctrine. 

 

In the end everyone must grab their tray and line up at the cafeteria. Not everything is going to fit on one tray - better just take what you can digest

Edited April 30, 2015 by Gray

[Nofear]

Like I said, catch 22. President Lee was once a living prophet.

 

Of course Pres. Lee did clarify his comments and teaching on the matter in another occasion.

 

 

"We have the standard Church works. Why do we call them standard? If there is any teacher who teaches a doctrine that can’t be substantiated from the standard church works—and I make one qualification, and that is unless that one be the President of the Church, who alone has the right to declare new doctrine—then you may know by that same token that such a teacher is but expressing his own opinion. If, on the other hand, you have someone teaching a doctrine that cannot be substantiated by the scriptures, and more than that, if it contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know that that person is teaching false doctrine, no matter what his position in this church may be. The President of the Church alone may declare the mind and will of God to His people. No officer nor any other church in the world has this high and lofty prerogative. When the President proclaims any such new doctrine, he will declare it to be a revelation from the Lord.” (Teachings of Harold B. Lee, p. 149.)

[rodheadlee]

 

 

"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.

Alma 42:

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

[JLHPROF]

Alma 42:

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

 

Thank you.  That's my thoughts perfectly.

- Law exists/punishment exists

- Law gets broken

- Repentance is option one and mercy claims it

- Justice is option two (justice claimeth the creature) and the punishment is executed

- If option one or two were not met God would cease to be God - he is bound by the law.

 

D&C 82:10

I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.

 

D&C 130:20-21

There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

Edited April 30, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Gray]

Of course Pres. Lee did clarify his comments and teaching on the matter in another occasion.

 

That doesn't help much though, because he said new doctrine must come only from the President of the church, and must be specifically identified as a revelation. 

 

I don't know of anything like that that has been communicated to us that also hasn't been added on to the standard works. The last time that happened was 1978. 

Edited April 30, 2015 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

Mark, the link only goes to google.com.

It should be google search results for "percentage of gaypeople". I wanted to give multiple sources that show the same thing.

But here is a CDC report on the topic

www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr077.pdf

[mfbukowski]

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.

As usual, a pointless, unreasoned tirade.

If the scriptures are not a reliable source for revelation what is?

Did you not realize that most here believe the bible??

What alternative do you offer for seeking the will of God?

What is your brilliant systematic Theology which replaces it?

Your vision needs to be a little longer than your nose.

Edited April 30, 2015 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

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.

 

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.

 

 

You would really have a God that has no rules, no law, does whatever he wants on a whim, can change the commandments whenever he wants, but never changes and has existed exactly as he is now forever and will exist exactly as he is now forever?

 

I could never worship such a being.

 

These various evolutions and iterations of creeds, and others to come over the centuries, declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, imminent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable; without body, parts, or passions, and dwelling outside space and time.  In such creeds all three persons are separate persons, but they are a single being; the oft-noted mystery of the Trinity.  They are three distinct persons, yet not three gods, but one.  All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible.  Now we agree with our critics on at least that point.  That such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible. - Jeffrey R. Holland.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

Yes I edited it in memory of prop 8.

We no longer have free speech.

[california boy]

As usual, a pointless, unreasoned tirade.

If the scriptures are not a reliable source for revelation what is?

Did you not realize that most here believe the bible??

What alternative do you offer for seeking the will of God?

What is your brilliant systematic Theology which replaces it?

Your vision needs to be a little longer than the length of your, uh, nose.

 

The point of my worthless unreasoned  triad is that you can defend just about any position, doctrine, belief, prejudice random thought and what ever else you can come up with by using this "absolutely clear" set of scriptures.  There are literally thousands of christian churches with widely held conflicting beliefs.  Yet they all base those beliefs on . .  .wait for it. . .THE BIBLE!  You act as if believing in the Bible clarifies the will of God.  It clearly does not.  Even within a single church, people banter scriptures back and forth to "prove" their belief is in line with God.  Just take a look at this thread, or quite frankly, any thread on this board.  In every one of them you will find justification for conflicting beliefs all supported by this "absolutely clear" Bible.  

 

When you can justify slavery, murder, rape, war, stoning, racial prejudice, forcing women to marry someone they don't want to, blood sacrifice, burning people at the stake, persecution of anyone different than your ethnic group condemning people for what they eat and who they love, etc, etc, etc,  all using the Bible, then one can hardly make the claim that the scriptures are "absolutely clear". 

 

What alternative do you offer for seeking the will of God?

 

 

The answer to this question may very well be the reason religion is loosing members at an epidemic rate.  7.5 million have left Christianity in just the last 2 years.  80% of the next generation have walked away from organized religion.  They don't trust the Bible as a source for knowing the will of God.  And they don't trust organized religion telling them that they believe they know the will of God.  

 

In answer to your question.  I personally put 90% of my religious belief in the words of Christ Himself.  He spent 3 years right here on earth telling us what was important to Him.  Perhaps everything else is just not that important.  When you have Christ Himself teaching eternal principles, it carries a lot more weight for me than some man claiming to be a prophet of God none of which can be varified  and claiming to speak for God through his own prejudice and times in which he lives.  Most all of the dogma found in organized religion really has no importance to me.  The core message of Christ is the message, path and light.  When you veer from that message, you do so at your own peril.

 

There now you have another worthless unreasoned tirade to comment on.

[JLHPROF]

The answer to this question may very well be the reason religion is loosing members at an epidemic rate.  7.5 million have left Christianity in just the last 2 years.  80% of the next generation have walked away from organized religion.  They don't trust the Bible as a source for knowing the will of God.  And they don't trust organized religion telling them that they believe they know the will of God.  

 

Pretty soon we will be ready for Christ to return and society will be just as wicked as in the days of Noah.

They sure are working hard on it.

[carbon dioxide]

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.  

There are many acts that people may do that are not mentioned in the scriptures but should we assume that since they are not mentioned then they are ok.  Take for example necrophilia.  Where does it talk about this in the Book of Mormon, D&C, Pearl of Great Price?  It does not.  Do we assume that since it did not mention it that the God and the men who wrote those scriptures would be ok with it?   I think the answer is a clear no.    When you read the scriptures, is there anything that would remotely suggest that God would be ok with homosexuality regardless if whether the homosexuals are married by the state or not?  Perhaps some things just don't need to be mentioned much as it was a clear given that they are wrong.  It is on difference between a child and an adult.  Small children may say "Oh mom did not say specifically we can't do that, so we can do it."  An adult would say "Yes but do you really think mom would approve of it even though she did not tell you directly."

 

God does not have to dot ever i and cross every t.  We should be bright enough to take certain information and make conclusions on other things even if those other things are not specifically mentioned. 

[Kenngo1969]

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.

Celibacy rather than marriage, if the latter opportunity does not present itself in this life, in fact is the right choice for those of us who find ourselves in that circumstance.

[JLHPROF]

 

God does not have to dot ever i and cross every t.  We should be bright enough to take certain information and make conclusions on other things even if those other things are not specifically mentioned. 

 

Exactly.  The principle of law is established by pattern.  Anything that doesn't conform to that principle of law cannot be made acceptable under it.

The principle of marriage is to continue life.  Any marriage that can never in this life or in the world to come (in the case of fertility challenges) produce life can never be acceptable under that law.  We don't need a list of all the relationships that violate that law, they're self evident.

[mfbukowski]

The point of my worthless unreasoned  triad is that you can defend just about any position, doctrine, belief, prejudice random thought and what ever else you can come up with by using this "absolutely clear" set of scriptures.  There are literally thousands of christian churches with widely held conflicting beliefs.  Yet they all base those beliefs on . .  .wait for it. . .THE BIBLE!  You act as if believing in the Bible clarifies the will of God.  It clearly does not.  Even within a single church, people banter scriptures back and forth to "prove" their belief is in line with God.  Just take a look at this thread, or quite frankly, any thread on this board.  In every one of them you will find justification for conflicting beliefs all supported by this "absolutely clear" Bible.  

 

When you can justify slavery, murder, rape, war, stoning, racial prejudice, forcing women to marry someone they don't want to, blood sacrifice, burning people at the stake, persecution of anyone different than your ethnic group condemning people for what they eat and who they love, etc, etc, etc,  all using the Bible, then one can hardly make the claim that the scriptures are "absolutely clear". 

 

 

The answer to this question may very well be the reason religion is loosing members at an epidemic rate.  7.5 million have left Christianity in just the last 2 years.  80% of the next generation have walked away from organized religion.  They don't trust the Bible as a source for knowing the will of God.  And they don't trust organized religion telling them that they believe they know the will of God.  

 

In answer to your question.  I personally put 90% of my religious belief in the words of Christ Himself.  He spent 3 years right here on earth telling us what was important to Him.  Perhaps everything else is just not that important.  When you have Christ Himself teaching eternal principles, it carries a lot more weight for me than some man claiming to be a prophet of God none of which can be varified  and claiming to speak for God through his own prejudice and times in which he lives.  Most all of the dogma found in organized religion really has no importance to me.  The core message of Christ is the message, path and light.  When you veer from that message, you do so at your own peril.

 

There now you have another worthless unreasoned tirade to comment on.

Well believe it or not, I would actually like to manufacture a position for you that makes sense, the only problem is that you spent so much space in that post constructing a straw man, that you make it hard.

If you ever read anything besides threads on gay topics, you would realize that there are virtually no topics like the ones you described.

And then there is the problem of not believing in the Bible, except the alleged "words of Jesus", which are probably at least as inaccurate as the rest of the Bible if not more so. Read about the origins of the gospel of Mark, the first written, if you don't believe me.

So it is inconsistent to accept the alleged words of Jesus contained in the Bible, and throw out the rest of it.

But I still think you could put together a logical position worth defending, which might go something like this:

"I disagree with all organized religion, and do not accept any scriptures, but I do accept only the words of Jesus, as recorded in the bible, because I think that was recorded accurately"

There. Easy.

Now the question remains about why such a person would be posting on a Mormon board, but I guess that is for you to figure out.

One would imagine that such an individual would not care what such ignorant people believed, and leave them alone.

But preaching that premarital sex is not wrong on a Mormon board is not likely to win many converts. So if you are not looking for converts, and you think we are ignorant, why ARE you here anyway.

[california boy]

There are many acts that people may do that are not mentioned in the scriptures but should we assume that since they are not mentioned then they are ok.  Take for example necrophilia.  Where does it talk about this in the Book of Mormon, D&C, Pearl of Great Price?  It does not.  Do we assume that since it did not mention it that the God and the men who wrote those scriptures would be ok with it?   I think the answer is a clear no.    When you read the scriptures, is there anything that would remotely suggest that God would be ok with homosexuality regardless if whether the homosexuals are married by the state or not?  Perhaps some things just don't need to be mentioned much as it was a clear given that they are wrong.  It is on difference between a child and an adult.  Small children may say "Oh mom did not say specifically we can't do that, so we can do it."  An adult would say "Yes but do you really think mom would approve of it even though she did not tell you directly."

 

God does not have to dot ever i and cross every t.  We should be bright enough to take certain information and make conclusions on other things even if those other things are not specifically mentioned. 

 

What you say may very well be true.  And actually it is the very point I am making.  The scriptures are not "clear".  If one takes all of the scriptures concerning sexual sins, the only conclusion one could possibly make is that God is not ok with sex outside of marriage.  He seems to be fine with sex inside the marriage covenant.

[california boy]

Celibacy rather than marriage, if the latter opportunity does not present itself in this life, in fact is the right choice for those of us who find ourselves in that circumstance.

 

I absolutely agree.  But for many gay couples, the opportunity does present itself.  They do indeed find someone they want to share their life with.

[california boy]

Well believe it or not, I would actually like to manufacture a position for you that makes sense, the only problem is that you spent so much space in that post constructing a straw man, that you make it hard.

 

 

You know you don't have to respond to my post if you find that they do not make any sense to you.

 

 

If you ever read anything besides threads on gay topics, you would realize that there are virtually no topics like the ones you described.

 

 

 

 

So exactly how do you know what threads I read and what threads I don't read????????

 

And are you claiming that members of the church don't have different views on most threads that are started?  Are you claiming that members of the church do not use scripture to support their views in other threads when presenting opposite positions?  Because that is what I claim and you seem to be disagreeing with that premise. 

 

 

 

And then there is the problem of not believing in the Bible, except the alleged "words of Jesus", which are probably at least as inaccurate as the rest of the Bible if not more so. Read about the origins of the gospel of Mark, the first written, if you don't believe me.

 

 

 

I was only answering your question "What alternative do you offer for seeking the will of God?"  I didn't claim it was foolproof or even the exact words of Christ.  I only said that is the alternative I follow.

 

 

So it is inconsistent to accept the alleged words of Jesus contained in the Bible, and throw out the rest of it.

 

 

 

 

You are basically stating that the origins of the Bible scripture is dicy at best and may not be any where close to accurately recording the words of Christ.  Then in the next breath you are stating that most members believe the scripture to be the word of God????  So which one is it.  Is the Bible an accurate reporting of the words of God or is it made up long after any actual teachings were taught?  I am really confused here.  

 

 

 

 

But I still think you could put together a logical position worth defending, which might go something like this:

"I disagree with all organized religion, and do not accept any scriptures, but I do accept only the words of Jesus, as recorded in the bible, because I think that was recorded accurately"

There. Easy.

 

 

 

Like I said,  I have made no claim that the recorded words of Christ are accurate.  I only have stated that those are the words I live by.

 

 

Now the question remains about why such a person would be posting on a Mormon board, but I guess that is for you to figure out.

One would imagine that such an individual would not care what such ignorant people believed, and leave them alone.

 

 

I guess you would be right if I thought that the people on this board were ignorant,  But I don't think I have called anyone ignorant here, nor have I ever insinuated such a thought. I have no idea why you even wrote this.  There is nothing in ANY of my post that ever, yes I am saying EVER that I think anyone on this board is ignorant.  What an insulting thing to say.  

 

I post on this board because I like to hear what others think about issues that are important to me.  I don't expect their opinions to be the same as mine.  Quite frankly, I wouldn't bother reading the posts if is all they did was held the same opinions that I hold.  Is the idea that I want to hear different points of view from my own such a strange idea for you?

 

 

 

But preaching that premarital sex is not wrong on a Mormon board is not likely to win many converts. So if you are not looking for converts, and you think we are ignorant, why ARE you here anyway.

 

 

 

CFR where I have EVER preached that premarital sex is not wrong.  

 

Who here thinks we will ever hear a reply for this CFR from Mfbukowski?  I personally don't think you have the integrity to admit you are wrong in your false accusation you have leveled against me.

[Nofear]

I personally haven't seen california boy try to misrepresent or pervert understanding of the LDS position on homosexuality (as opposed to other individuals, many members). He simply doesn't agree with it.

[carbon dioxide]

What you say may very well be true.  And actually it is the very point I am making.  The scriptures are not "clear".  If one takes all of the scriptures concerning sexual sins, the only conclusion one could possibly make is that God is not ok with sex outside of marriage.  He seems to be fine with sex inside the marriage covenant.

Right and since the scriptures only define the marriage covenant to be a male/female relationship in either monogamy or polygamy, there is no reason to apply it in any other situation.  We can't assume that God would accept different ways that man can creatively change the relationship to something else. 

[california boy]

And then there is the problem of not believing in the Bible, except the alleged "words of Jesus", which are probably at least as inaccurate as the rest of the Bible if not more so. Read about the origins of the gospel of Mark, the first written, if you don't believe me.

So it is inconsistent to accept the alleged words of Jesus contained in the Bible, and throw out the rest of it.

 

I am a little curious about this particular attack you made on my religious beliefs to follow the words of Christ as found in the New Testament.  Do you or the church believe that anything in the New Testament is not part of the gospel of Christ and was probably recorded inaccurately?  Is there anything in His teachings that are against the teachings of the church?  Are you suggesting that to follow the words of Christ as contained in the New Testament is a bad idea?

 

I would love to hear what your objections you have with me following the words of Christ as found in the New Testament.  And I would actually like to have you tell me what teachings in the church are more important than the gospel taught by Christ while He was here on earth.  I know that the church teaches dogma that are not found in the teachings of Christ that you and others believe come from God.  It would be of interest to me if you could list the additional dogma the church teaches you think are needed for my own salvation that Christ didn't teach while He was here on earth.

 

 You bring up a very interesting topic.  Perhaps it needs it's own thread.  But for now, could you tell me the most important teachings of the church not found in the words of Christ?  I would love that.  In answer to one of your other questions, this is the exact reason why I post on this board.  I want to hear what you and others have to say.  Thanks.