Are Lds Prophets Wrong On Same Sex Marriage?

[mfbukowski]

It was intentional. Your post got me to think differently.

Now YOU are a guy I can talk to.

 

Whatdaya think of all this?

 

I personally do not care what people do in their bedrooms.  I care a lot about definitions- that is the way we define reality in our little social construction here.  I think clearly gay marriage does not fit with all that makes Mormonism unique.  Yes, some future prophet could authorize it, but at that point we might as well be Methodist.  I do not see how it matters that God is a "Man" if gender is not important, and that kind of materialistic humanism is part and parcel of Mormonism.

 

I know you left the church- and I am sure some of these factors encouraged your leaving, though I am not certain about the Orthodox views on these matters.

 

Do you feel that ssm can fit consistently into Orthodox theology?  Possibly you do not care?

 

I would love to hear from anyone who thinks that Mormons can consistently be Mormon and yet think that ssm is legitimate.  I know there are some out there, I would just like to see the thinking process involved.  Most of what I have seen hinges on "everybody thinks that way anyway".  What I am looking for is anyone who knows theology who sees no problem with ssm in a Mormon context.

 

I cannot imagine such a thing, and I could use help in imagining it, so at least I can argue against it. 

[mfbukowski]

As you wish.

 

But I have answered ALarson's challenge. The scriptures clearly teach that God would cease to be God if he violated His own eternal laws.

The most important word here is "his".  We believe he has set the laws which even he follows.

 

Imagine God saying he would cut ice cream out of his diet and then He eats some. 

 

God cannot be inconsistent.   If He is inconsistent, he is not God.

Edited May 2, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I won't play this game with you, Scott Lloyd.  I've seen you do this repeatedly on here.  When you're asked a question that you don't want to answer, you either act like you just cannot understand the question (even when it's obvious what you're being asked), or you insult the person who is asking the question.

 

Let's try just one more time and if you still don't want to answer the question, that's fine.

 

1. You state that a God can cease to be God.

 

2. You believe in the promise that you can someday become a God.

 

3. Does that mean you believe if you become a God that remaining a God for eternity is conditional?

 

And as far as my beliefs regarding scripture, I believe that the Mormon church is a man-made organization.   So, I believe their scriptures are written by man.  I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ and have not seen this teaching from him (that God can cease to be God).  Maybe I'm wrong and would love to read any scripture from the Bible on that.

And why pray tell, do you believe the Bible is not "man made"?

[mfbukowski]

I agree completely.  We can't assume anything is the will of God that God has not told us.  If we just start assuming dogma that we want to be the will of God when He has not revealed it as such, then the doctrine becomes the doctrine of man and not of God.

How do you know the difference?  Since you are expert at Mormon doctrine, I think the answer should be clear

[mfbukowski]

And the CFR still stands.  Where in this thread or any other thread have I EVER said that premarital sex is "not wrong"????

 

Answer the CFR or withdraw the accusation.  

 

Of course I predicted that you would not have the integrity to admit you were wrong.  What a surprise.

LOL

Indeed I can find nothing from you that says that premarital sex is not wrong.

 

Usually sex outside marriage is included in a list of items prohibited in the bible like slavery and wife beating which we all TAKE as being "wrong", and so I mistakenly concluded that you thought that premarital sex, like slavery and wife beating was also "wrong".

 

Silly me.

Here is the post

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.

Since your list is of behaviors which are clearly accepted today, I supposed that you meant that sex outside of marriage was also acceptable today.

No, it does not say the words that "premarital sex is not wrong" but that was my apparently erroneous conclusion.

Of course homosexuality within marriage was not even possible in the wildest imaginations of those who wrote the bible.

Neither does it mention..... well nevermind. Who knows, I could start a new movement in favor of what has hitherto been unimaginable.

Edited May 2, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Bobbieaware]

As you wish.

But I have answered ALarson's challenge. The scriptures clearly teach that God would cease to be God if he violated His own eternal laws.

In the spirit of full disclosure, when the Book of Mormon prophets speak of the outlandish idea of God ceasing to be God, each and every time the concept is mentioned it is presented as a logical and theological absurdity and not meant to be taken literaly. In 2 Nephi 2, the prophet Lehi speaks to the impossibility of such an occurance because if God did indeed cease to be God then ALL THINGS would vanish into non-existence -- and that's no going to happen. Rather, the idea is presented for illustrative purposes as a theoretical teaching aid to powerfully convey to the student that no human being will ever be able to escape his or her responsibility before God because "He ain't go in' nowhere," The following words of Moroni demonstrate my point:

19 And if there were miracles 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 changeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles. (Mormon 9)

Edited May 2, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[mfbukowski]

Or Adam-God.  Or Blacks and the Priesthood.  Or in prohibiting women from praying in Sacrament Meeting.

 

Where will it end!!!  

If your point is that we have an open canon, and that gospel doctrine changes, I think we already know that. We also believe that apostles and prophets are not infallible.

This is news to you?

[Calm]

I would love to hear from anyone who thinks that Mormons can consistently be Mormon and yet think that ssm is legitimate.  I know there are some out there, I would just like to see the thinking process involved.  Most of what I have seen hinges on "everybody thinks that way anyway".  What I am looking for is anyone who knows theology who sees no problem with ssm in a Mormon context.

 

 

Mark, you ever read this?:  https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Dialogue_V44N04_110.pdf

 

I have some fundamental disagreements this actually works with LDS theology, but am curious about your opinion.

 

OTOH, I like this argument better and I see it as very grounded in LDS theology, though not perfect of course:

 

http://squaretwo.org/Sq2AddlCommentarySherlock.html

 

She also response to the Petrey argument here:

 

http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleCasslerPlatosSon.html

[mfbukowski]

Since you were wondering why I thought you were not familiar with Mormon beliefs, I thought I would show you why I thought that.

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?

The bible clearly- yes, clearly- condemns homosexuality. Whether or not you accept the bible is your business. We believe the bible to be "true" as long as "it is translated correctly".

Joseph Smith used the word "translated" in an odd way. He began to work on a volume we term "the inspired translation" which was not a "translation" at all, but a re-write of the bible including new chapters and numerous statements in opposition to what was said previously in the bible.

LDS do in no means think that the Bible is "clear" on much of anything, but I think no one can mistake that it condemns 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.

Yep, that's the one. Somehow you don't think scripture is clear on homosexuality, yet you seem to think those abominations are clear as day. Of course we disagree with most of them, because you see we are now on the "New Covenant" which replaced the Law of Moses.

Perhaps you should look that up. 

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 was a young man named Joseph Smith who also had problems with the bible. He prayed for guidance and got further revelation.

The fact that the Bible condemns some things we now accept is because revelation has changed. What makes revelation "right" for an individual is praying about the truth of the specific revelation in doubt. This is basic Mormon doctrine. The bible also condemns murder, but I suppose you are not throwing that out as well, or are you? See, that is what we call an "inconsistency".

So indeed the Bible IS one way to know the will of God, but there are other sources as well, like the Standard Works, and most importantly, personal revelation.

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.

This of course is no different than what you do in accepting perhaps others of the 10 commandments and accepting the "words of Christ" rather unquestioningly.

I would be curious to find out why you condemn this practice in others while doing it yourself.

As LDS, it is clear that we accept portions of the Bible and not others, We do not keep kosher or celebrate Passover. Did you know that? Surely you knew that from the seminary classes you said you taught?

[mfbukowski]

Mark, you ever read this?:  https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Dialogue_V44N04_110.pdf

 

I have some fundamental disagreements this actually works with LDS theology, but am curious about your opinion.

 

OTOH, I like this argument better and I see it as very grounded in LDS theology, though not perfect of course:

 

http://squaretwo.org/Sq2AddlCommentarySherlock.html

 

She also response to the Petrey argument here:

 

http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleCasslerPlatosSon.html

Thanks Cal, will give it a read and respond when I can. Very interested. I am pretty ignorant on these matters obviously.

I did read the Petrey piece before and was not impressed. But probably I should detail why and maybe do some kind of response.

Edited May 2, 2015 by mfbukowski

[california boy]

california boy has shown up; can a thread closure be far behind?

Whatever.  Ok I will leave the thread.  Sorry I posted my thoughts.

[california boy]

LOL

Indeed I can find nothing from you that says that premarital sex is not wrong.

 

Usually sex outside marriage is included in a list of items prohibited in the bible like slavery and wife beating which we all TAKE as being "wrong", and so I mistakenly concluded that you thought that premarital sex, like slavery and wife beating was also "wrong".

 

Silly me.

Here is the post

Since your list is of behaviors which are clearly accepted today, I supposed that you meant that sex outside of marriage was also acceptable today.

No, it does not say the words that "premarital sex is not wrong" but that was my apparently erroneous conclusion.

Of course homosexuality within marriage was not even possible in the wildest imaginations of those who wrote the bible.

Neither does it mention..... well nevermind. Who knows, I could start a new movement in favor of what has hitherto been unimaginable.

 

I would comment on your post and clarify what I was expressing, but Scott Lloyd thinks it is better if I leave this thread.  And since you gave him a rep point for his post, I am assuming you wish me to leave the thread as well   So I will bid you all adieu.  thanks for responding to the CFR.

Edited May 2, 2015 by california boy

[Damien the Leper]

Now YOU are a guy I can talk to.

 

Whatdaya think of all this?

 

I personally do not care what people do in their bedrooms.  I care a lot about definitions- that is the way we define reality in our little social construction here.  I think clearly gay marriage does not fit with all that makes Mormonism unique.  Yes, some future prophet could authorize it, but at that point we might as well be Methodist.  I do not see how it matters that God is a "Man" if gender is not important, and that kind of materialistic humanism is part and parcel of Mormonism.

 

I know you left the church- and I am sure some of these factors encouraged your leaving, though I am not certain about the Orthodox views on these matters.

 

Do you feel that ssm can fit consistently into Orthodox theology?  Possibly you do not care?

 

I would love to hear from anyone who thinks that Mormons can consistently be Mormon and yet think that ssm is legitimate.  I know there are some out there, I would just like to see the thinking process involved.  Most of what I have seen hinges on "everybody thinks that way anyway".  What I am looking for is anyone who knows theology who sees no problem with ssm in a Mormon context.

 

I cannot imagine such a thing, and I could use help in imagining it, so at least I can argue against it. 

Open theism allows me to be comfortable with that which I do not know and my doubts.

If I consider the LDS, I see no room for SSM unless there is a fundamental change. I have no dog in that fight either way.

Orthodoxy has possibilities due to procreation and family unit outside the divine family of creation. It will be a long time, longer than the LDS I imagine before the Orthodox church embraces SSM. This is primarily because it is steeped in the apostolic faith and tradition of the first century church.

The etymology and definitions consistently develop. In Mormonism, the various changes in what certain theological terms mean is evident. What grace means to Mormons is not an etymologically traditional rendering of the word. That's okay because it fits in the theological construct of Mormonism.

Terms such as 'traditional' or 'natural' hold very little substance if applying them to marriage.

Arguing the morality of acting on sexual orientation cannot be simplified to a fifth grade literal rendering of the text. There are many factors that attribute to the narrative. If modern revelation arrogantly tries to assert that history and scripture say one thing but God really means something else then we reach a huge problem.

[mfbukowski]

Whatever.  Ok I will leave the thread.  Sorry I posted my thoughts.

Oh my. Unbelievable.

No, I agree that the mods often close threads like this one. Very slick avoidance tactic, and you get to blame someone else too. I guess that is a win-win.

Edited May 2, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Open theism allows me to be comfortable with that which I do not know and my doubts.

If I consider the LDS, I see no room for SSM unless there is a fundamental change. I have no dog in that fight either way.

Orthodoxy has possibilities due to procreation and family unit outside the divine family of creation. It will be a long time, longer than the LDS I imagine before the Orthodox church embraces SSM. This is primarily because it is steeped in the apostolic faith and tradition of the first century church.

The etymology and definitions consistently develop. In Mormonism, the various changes in what certain theological terms mean is evident. What grace means to Mormons is not an etymologically traditional rendering of the word. That's okay because it fits in the theological construct of Mormonism.

Terms such as 'traditional' or 'natural' hold very little substance if applying them to marriage.

Arguing the morality of acting on sexual orientation cannot be simplified to a fifth grade literal rendering of the text. There are many factors that attribute to the narrative. If modern revelation arrogantly tries to assert that history and scripture say one thing but God really means something else then we reach a huge problem.

Ah, ok, interesting.

So maybe the dual natures- human vs divine would allow ssm on the "human" side while maintaining divine distance from human activities?

I could see that as possibly working for Orthodox. It even fits perhaps with their idea of theosis as "sharing" God's nature, without having a full measure of his nature as "Divine".

Makes sense I think....?

[Scott Lloyd]

I would comment on your post and clarify what I was expressing, but Scott Lloyd thinks it is better if I leave this thread.  And since you gave him a rep point for his post, I am assuming you wish me to leave the thread as well   So I will bid you all adieu.  thanks for responding to the CFR.

My comment was observational and, I will acknowledge, sardonic. But I have neither the power nor the inclination to compel people to leave threads. Whether or not you remain is up to you, as is the level of civility you maintain so long as you <are> here.

[ERayR]

Well for someone who taught seminary for 6 years, gospel doctrine class for several, as well as serving in the bishopric, high counsel and young mens president for many years, I am kinda surprised that you think I have an elementary understanding of Mormon doctrine.  But hey, I am sure you are so superior, that you find my little religious "triads" as you are fond of calling them, bothersome.  What I don't understand is why you bother to respond to any of my posts since my understanding of the gospel is so inferior to yours.  This post says absolutely nothing.  Too bad.  Maybe I will start a thread on the question I asked and get others opinions.  Why did you even bother to write anything?  

 

 

 

As laudable as serving well and honorably in these and other Church callings is, they do not automatically enhance ones understanding of the gospel.  Understanding comes from reading, study, prayer and personal revelation.  Often we find ourselves so busy filling our callings we neglect to do what is necessary to improve our understanding.

[Gray]

I don't think maintaining the idea of sexual reproduction in the eternities is necessary to maintain the "Mormonness" of the church. After all, the paradigm previous to that one, where God simply organized past-eternal intelligences into spirits, was also very "Mormon", and remains a unique Mormon doctrine (and one not at odds with the idea of, say, eternal gay marriage).

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

 

Unless you count the time when he tried to pretend, with feigned surprise, that the Church's rejection of "same sex marriage" as falling within the bounds of the Law of Chastity was some kind of unexpected, recent development.

[mfbukowski]

I don't think maintaining the idea of sexual reproduction in the eternities is necessary to maintain the "Mormonness" of the church. After all, the paradigm previous to that one, where God simply organized past-eternal intelligences into spirits, was also very "Mormon", and remains a unique Mormon doctrine (and one not at odds with the idea of, say, eternal gay marriage).

And the comparison of the bride and bridegroom?  That we have a "Father and Mother" in heaven, that 98 percent of us hold as models?  That we should emulate them and seek to become one as they have?

 

This is not about sexual reproduction but cosmic principles and complements becoming one.  Yin and Yang - we call it "opposition in all things",  Good and evil.

 

ALL OF PROGRESSION IS BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF COMPLEMENTS- the fall itself is about the necessity of trials

 

This is about male and female becoming one, and the part it has in "opposition in all things" not about "sexual reproduction in the eternities".   I submit that that is a shallow interpretation.

2 Nephi 2

 

 11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

 12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

 13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

 14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.

 15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.

 16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

 17 And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God.

 18 And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

 19 And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth.

 20 And they have brought forth children; yea, even the family of all the earth.

 21 And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents.

 22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

 23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

 24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

 25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

 26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

 27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

 

Edited May 3, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

The story we tell is that before the fall, Adam and Eve could not have children, because they were essentially sexless.  The same sex, essentially.

 

The fall introduces the principle of complements- of opposition in all things

 

Redemption itself hinges on the fall, and the principle of complements.   Sex is an essential element of the purpose of the creation of humanity- to have joy in one's posterity and learn the principle of complements. Christ is the bridegroom and the church is the bride.  They are to become one and we are to do the same

Edited May 3, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Gray]

And the comparison of the bride and bridegroom?  That we have a "Father and Mother" in heaven, that 98 percent of us hold as models?  That we should emulate them and seek to become one as they have?

 

Jesus is the bridgegroom. We're all "the bride", including us men

 

This is not about sexual reproduction but cosmic principles and complements becoming one.  Yin and Yang - we call it "opposition in all things",  Good and evil.

 

So which gender is good and which is evil?

 

ALL OF PROGRESSION IS BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF COMPLEMENTS- the fall itself is about the necessity of trials

 

It's a nice idea, but I'd submit it's not worth the lives destroyed by our teachings on gay people. There are limits to any metaphor.

 

This is about male and female becoming one, and the part it has in "opposition in all things" not about "sexual reproduction in the eternities".   I submit that that is a shallow interpretation.

2 Nephi 2

 

It may be a shallow interpretation, but it's also interpretation that seems to be the orthodox one. Typically in the church when we discuss opposition in all things we're discussing trials and the influence of Satan vs blessings and the influence of God.

 

 

My responses in blue, thanks