rockpond Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 So if a woman for what ever reason cannot marry in this life, do we need a new revelation to ask "what happens to those that can't marry in this life"? It is exactly the same thing with those that have ssa. It's not exactly the same thing. Like you, I believe that someone who did not marry in this life will have the opportunity in the next. I was just pointing out that that specific current church teaching conflicts with Section 132.
thesometimesaint Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. If we actually apply this scripture in real life, we can see the real world results and see which position is of God and which is of man. I do try to do his will, but often fail. That is why I'm a big believer in repentance. 2
Gray Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 I see but you won't believe me. The orthodox position on the matter leads to misery and sometimes death. It creates broken people. Gay marriage on the other hand seems to be as beneficial to gay people as it is to straight people. 1
Gray Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 I do try to do his will, but often fail. That is why I'm a big believer in repentance. Me too
Scott Lloyd Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) Great, then her statement isn't "doctrine." You may agree or disagree if you wish. She was affirming what is already widely recognized among faithful Latter-day Saints: that the family proclamation is an exposition of existing doctrine. Again, she has not been corrected or reprimanded for her statement. The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve do not collectively and individually put their signatures on a proclamation and publish it to the world if its content is not authoritative and doctrinal. You may disagree with with them and with Sister Oscarson and with me if you wish. Edited May 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 3
Gray Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 She was affirming what is already widely recognized among faithful Latter-day Saints: that the family proclamation is an exposition of existing doctrine. Again, she has not been corrected or reprimanded for her statement. The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve do not collectively and individually put their signatures on a proclamation and publish it to the world if its content is not authoritative and doctrinal. You may disagree with with them and with Sister Oscarson and with me if you wish. That's an awful lot of weight to put on brief comment from a non-general authority. But again, the question is not whether or not the POTF is authoritative or doctrinal.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) A thread is going to be closed by me agreeing with you? How could that possibly be? What could you or anyone else possibly disagree agree with what I have proposed. It all came from your own ideas which are solid as a rock. So is your new tatic to bully me out of participating in threads rather than respond to my posts? Edit: Oh yeah, I forgot (sigh)I'm merely highlighting a pattern I have observed and mentioned before. It goes like this: california boy enters thread. Spiteful back-and-forth ensues. Thread gets closed. It's not quite as certain as night-follows-day, but it's starting to approach it. But I'll tell you what: Lest I be further accused of trying to "bully" you, I'll try to ignore your sniping on this thread going forward. I can't guarantee that, though. I'm only human. Edited May 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) That's an awful lot of weight to put on brief comment from a non-general authority. But again, the question is not whether or not the POTF is authoritative or doctrinal. It is both. And if you want to argue against that good luck. Apparently you think the "15 men" that wrote it and put their names behind it are just dudes that are members of a board that run a corporation. Your comments here lead me to believe that. And stuff at GC is just good council. Edited May 13, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) That's an awful lot of weight to put on brief comment from a non-general authority. Just as I expected: Sister Oscarson would eventually be dismissed or minimalized by the "progressive Mormons" (your self-appellation) here, because she's not a male Church leader. But again, the question is not whether or not the POTF is authoritative or doctrinal. Then I have to say I can't figure out what your point is, other than to be annoyingly argumentative. Edited May 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 She was affirming what is already widely recognized among faithful Latter-day Saints: that the family proclamation is an exposition of existing doctrine. Again, she has not been corrected or reprimanded for her statement. The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve do not collectively and individually put their signatures on a proclamation and publish it to the world if its content is not authoritative and doctrinal. You may disagree with with them and with Sister Oscarson and with me if you wish. As much as I like Gray and feel aligned with many of his/her views, I don't see how anyone can describe the Proclamation as anything other than current church doctrine and authoritative. Can we twist the words at the beginning to say it wasn't trying to exclude SSM (marriage between a man and a women is ordained of God), sure, but we would have to ignore the historical context in which it was developed - i.e. it came to light in an era when the national debate was around Hawaii's 1993 ruling allowing SSM, and the passing of the 1996 DOMA. Does it constitute a new revelation? No, but it clearly represents the Qof12 and FP belief about the revealed word of God regarding what a family should be. 4
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Just as I expected: Sister Oscarson would eventually be dismissed or minimalized by the "progressives" (your term) here, because she's not a male Church leader.Then I have to say I can't figure out what your point is, other than to be annoyingly argumentative.Ha good point. I thought he was arguing that the PotF was not doctrinal or authoritative. People "believe" it is but their words tell me they really don't think it is anything but "15 men" that wrote it and put their names behind it are just dudes that are members of a board that run a corporation". Too much John Dehlin.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) That's an awful lot of weight to put on brief comment from a non-general authority. But again, the question is not whether or not the POTF is authoritative or doctrinal. Ah I see. You were referring to whether the statement that "the POTF is revelatory document" is doctrine. My apologies. The doctrine espoused in the POTF is clearly not revelatory (nothing new was revealed), but rather a restatement of current doctrine (all in one place). It seems like Sister Oscarson is saying that the issuance of the document was an inspired act. I'm sure the brethren who signed the document thought they were acting under inspiration so I'm not sure why this is a point worth debating. Edited May 13, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding 1
HappyJackWagon Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 As much as I like Gray and feel aligned with many of his/her views, I don't see how anyone can describe the Proclamation as anything other than current church doctrine and authoritative. Can we twist the words at the beginning to say it wasn't trying to exclude SSM (marriage between a man and a women is ordained of God), sure, but we would have to ignore the historical context in which it was developed - i.e. it came to light in an era when the national debate was around Hawaii's 1993 ruling allowing SSM, and the passing of the 1996 DOMA. Does it constitute a new revelation? No, but it clearly represents the Qof12 and FP belief about the revealed word of God regarding what a family should be. I think a lot of this quibbling about the POTF is a semantic issue. It is NOT part of the canon and it has not been identified as a "revelation" though it is clearly intended to be the doctrinal position of the church. The quibbling comes in when we parse the words revelation, doctrine, canon.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 I think a lot of this quibbling about the POTF is a semantic issue. It is NOT part of the canon and it has not been identified as a "revelation" though it is clearly intended to be the doctrinal position of the church. The quibbling comes in when we parse the words revelation, doctrine, canon. Fair enough. Just as I can't see calling it not doctrine, I can't see calling it a revelation. What exactly is revealed inthe POTF?
Scott Lloyd Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) I think a lot of this quibbling about the POTF is a semantic issue. It is NOT part of the canon and it has not been identified as a "revelation" though it is clearly intended to be the doctrinal position of the church.The quibbling comes in when we parse the words revelation, doctrine, canon.This is the very thing I've been at pains to say when I have repeatedly expressed my position, which is this: "The Family: a Proclamation to the World" is not revelation in the sense of declaring new doctrine or doctrine that was not already had among the Latter-day Saints. But it can be called "revelatory" in the sense that its drafting and publication by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve was an inspired act. Edited May 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Popular Post smac97 Posted May 13, 2015 Popular Post Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) That's an awful lot of weight to put on brief comment from a non-general authority. But again, the question is not whether or not the POTF is authoritative or doctrinal.The Proclamation is not canonized as scripture, but that doesn't mean it is not "authoritative or doctrinal." It was published by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve acting in those capacities. I don't see how it can be construed as anything but "authoritative." And it expounds upon, clarifies, interprets and sums up the Church's teachings on the family, so it's pretty hard to argue that it's not "doctrinal," either.Personally, I have wondered about (and even hoped for) the Proclamation being canonized. However, I wonder if the Lord, in His infinite wisdom and mercy, is holding off on that because He understands that there are many members of the Church who are presently kicking against the pricks, who are rebelling against plain and simple truths found in the Restored Gospel, and are instead in the thrall of the world (really, folks, can anyone here seriously suggest that endorsing/embracing homosexual behavior, same-sex marriage, etc. is anything but the socially popular and politically correct thing to do these days, whereas supporting the Church's position gets one accused of bigotry and hate?). The Proclamation was published 20 years ago, which is, sociologically speaking, the blink of an eye. Is it possible that the Lord is simply giving His children time to come to grips with it? Is it possible that the Church itself also needed time to refine and improve its understanding of the revelations it has already received about families, and that we've seen the results in things like the Proclamation, and also the Church's refined/improved posture towards people with SSA (as evidenced by things like MormonsandGays.org, the Church's support in Utah of anti-discrimination statutes pertaining to gay rights, etc.)? I believe the Lord is running His Church. I believe the Brethren are in communion with Him. I reject insinuations and accusations that the Brethren are acting not on inspiration and revelation and scripture, but instead out of bigotry, or based on incorrect traditions. The Brethren are not perfect, but I reject the notion that they could be so utterly and completely wrong about something so utterly and completely foundational to the Restored Gospel: the family. What they have said comports with the Scriptures. The denizens of the Great and Spacious Building are presently screaming at the Saints about this issue. They are "in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards" the Church. They are hoping to bully and shame and coerce the Saints into joining them in their digs. And sadly, there are some Latter-day Saints who are "feeling their way towards that great and spacious building," and who would rather listen to what is socially popular than to what is right and inspired. These two categories are not always at odds, but when they are, the Saints should choose the latter over the former. The Proclamation is not canonized, but it comports with the scriptures. I do see how we can view it as anything but "authoritative and doctrinal." Thanks,-Smac Edited May 13, 2015 by smac97 7
thesometimesaint Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 I wouldn't have a big problem with the PotF becoming canon. I would like to see more scripture on our Mother-in-Heaven before we do. Maybe in October GC. However if we push for it to be law of land, as in Prop 8. I see no legally consistent argument for such. Apparently neither does the Church.
smac97 Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 I wouldn't have a big problem with the PotF becoming canon. I would like to see more scripture on our Mother-in-Heaven before we do. Maybe in October GC. However if we push for it to be law of land, as in Prop 8. I see no legally consistent argument for such. Apparently neither does the Church. Can you explain what you see as a legal inconsistent argument? Thanks, -Smac
thesometimesaint Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Can you explain what you see as a legal inconsistent argument? Thanks, -Smac One that follows the 1st, 14th Amendments, and the spirit of Loving v Virginia. That allows consenting adults to form legally binding relationships including that of marriage as they choose.
Daniel2 Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) Announcing that God is going to "reveal" that the Church should be practicing "same sex temple marriage" as soon as the Church is "ready" for it (i.e. once the brethren become as "enlightened" as you are) is properly offensive to faithful Latter-day Saints; not merely because it is barf-worthy in its own right, and not even because it is outright apostasy for anyone to presume that the Lord has told him something applicable to the whole Church before He has revealed it to His appointed servants; but mostly because it would be a hideous distortion of LDS theology and soteriology, and a hideous desecration and defilement of the Lord's Holy House.Looks like Pahoran's reverting to his true form, degrading insults and all.Welcome back... I guess the same spirit which possessed you in your former incarnation continues to animate you in this life... just like those of us who find joy in being married to our same-sex spouses expect to remain gay in the next! Edited May 13, 2015 by Daniel2 3
Gray Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) It is both. And if you want to argue against that good luck. Sure, I agree. But the what I was saying is that there is no evidence it was a revelation, which is different than authoritative or doctrinal. The idea that it was revelatory is not doctrinal. Edited May 13, 2015 by Gray 1
Maestrophil Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 True. Circular, but true. I wasn't really being facetious... Form this article on LDS.org. https://www.lds.org/topics/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng "The Church’s doctrinal position is clear: Sexual activity should only occur between a man and a woman who are married. However, that should never be used as justification for unkindness." So if gay marriage means gay sex will occur, then is is a violation of doctrine. I am fine with SSM/unions in the secular world and equal benefits for gay couples etc. But I do not see how gay temple marriage would ever be possible if gay sex is a violation of the Law of Chastity. It really is an issue of sexual practice IMO. 2
Gray Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Just as I expected: Sister Oscarson would eventually be dismissed or minimalized by the "progressive Mormons" (your self-appellation) here, because she's not a male Church leader.Then I have to say I can't figure out what your point is, other than to be annoyingly argumentative. The point is if you're going to hang your hat on a single quote by someone not given authority to speak for the church, then you're going to find yourself having to deal with a lot of other single quotes from church leaders past and present that tend to be quoted ad nauseum by church critics. The church itself seems to have said in recent published media that for something to be doctrinal it has to be repeated frequently by many church leaders. Sister Oscarson's ambiguous use of the word "revelatory" doesn't seem to qualify. As far as her gender is concerned, I would be happy if she were given authority to help lead the church. But that's not my decision to make. 1
ALarson Posted May 13, 2015 Author Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) What's interesting is that the very people here who are arguing that the proclamation is doctrine or a revelation or revelatory are the exact same ones who will be arguing that it was never canon or a revelation or church doctrine if the church changes its position at all on this topic. It will be exactly what took place regarding the priesthood ban. They'll just say that Sister Oscarson was speaking as a woman and only giving her opinion. Or that just because someone's answer to a question was posted in the "Newsroom" section on lds.org, that doesn't mean it was the official position of the first presidency. Edited May 13, 2015 by ALarson 2
rockpond Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 I wasn't really being facetious... Form this article on LDS.org. https://www.lds.org/topics/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng "The Church’s doctrinal position is clear: Sexual activity should only occur between a man and a woman who are married. However, that should never be used as justification for unkindness." So if gay marriage means gay sex will occur, then is is a violation of doctrine. I am fine with SSM/unions in the secular world and equal benefits for gay couples etc. But I do not see how gay temple marriage would ever be possible if gay sex is a violation of the Law of Chastity. It really is an issue of sexual practice IMO. It all hinges on how marriage is defined for the law of chastity, right? I think that's why the Brethren have made repeated statements about the legal definition of marriage not changing our definition of marriage within the Church. They are saying: living the law of chastity requires that you use man-woman marriage as the only valid definition of marriage, what the state defines as legal is not relevant to the law of chastity.
Recommended Posts