Thinking Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 Some doctrines are eternal, and others are subject to further revelation. Some doctrines are eternal until they are subjected to further revelation.
sethpayne Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 And Dehlin's loss of membership does not stop him from making misguided predictions. Indeed. And I would also argue that retaining membership doesn't preclude misguided predictions either.
Russell C McGregor Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 Did I say anything about the Priesthood ban? It was simply an example of the set of teachings that was subject to further revelation.
halconero Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 The Lord's definition of marriage according to the LDS church is more accurate. This isn't a bait for a fight, Scott. But specifying and clarification is absolutely necessary. The Lord's definition of marriage according to the LDS church has no bearing, authority or relevance to Atheists, Buddhists, various Christian groups, Jews, Native Americans, etc. The scope of that definition is limited to ONLY 14 million people. It brings up an interesting topic that is probably better for another thread. To what extent do laws, covenants, and revelations according to the Latter-day Saint church govern, speak for, or are authoritative for others?One might consider the God-given prohibition against thievery binding on all humanity, while commandments governing tithing or the Word of Wisdom are covenant/church specific laws for which no unbaptized person may be held accountable. Anyways, I won't further derail on this topic. 3
Russell C McGregor Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) Some doctrines are eternal until they are subjected to further revelation. Yes, that's the standard anti-Mormon party line. All the immoralists smugly assume that same sex "marriage" will be so subject. That is because they simply do not understand LDS life and teaching. But it will not happen. In order for it to happen, the Church would have to abandon the concept of moral rectitude, and any regard for the sanctity of marriage. Which is why, not only will it never happen, but no faithful Latter-day Saint anywhere even wants it to happen. As I think I might have mentioned before. Edited September 1, 2015 by Russell C McGregor 4
rockpond Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 And over on the Mark E Peterson thread we have almost 600 posts discussing why doctrine taught by prophets and apostles can be disavowed. And devout members stating emphatically that the position of the church is that the ban never came from God. If that's the case, than it doesn't really matter whether or not it was prophesied that the ban would be lifted -- it was of men, not god. The same justification can be used in 40 years. 2
rockpond Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 Last time I posted about it, rockpond brought it up and asked for a read-out. It was when he claimed things were "ahead of schedule" in having his hope fulfilled. I hadn't brought it up for several months prior to that. You'll recall that I pointed out a couple reasons why I think we're ahead of schedule. First, since it was in the context of the BSA thread, I noted that the Church had just backed down from threats to end it affiliation with Scouting over gay scouts/leaders. Second, the Church also reversed it's previous position on LGBT discrimination legislation by backing the Utah law. Those rapid-fire events in the past 6 months are what prompted me to surmise that we may be ahead of schedule to Dehlin's prediction.
Kenngo1969 Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) The Lord's definition of marriage according to the LDS church is more accurate. This isn't a bait for a fight, Scott. But specifying and clarification is absolutely necessary. The Lord's definition of marriage according to the LDS church has no bearing, authority or relevance to Atheists, Buddhists, various Christian groups, Jews, Native Americans, etc. The scope of that definition is limited to ONLY 14 million people.Huh. So I've been misreading its title all of these years. So it's really not, The Family: A Proclamation to the World, but rather, The Family: A Proclamation to the Church. Who knew? Thanks for the clarification. Edited September 1, 2015 by Kenngo1969 1
Russell C McGregor Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 And over on the Mark E Peterson thread we have almost 600 posts discussing why doctrine taught by prophets and apostles can be disavowed. And devout members stating emphatically that the position of the church is that the ban never came from God. If that's the case, than it doesn't really matter whether or not it was prophesied that the ban would be lifted -- it was of men, not god. The same justification can be used in 40 years. Are you sure it's okay for you to call people "devout members" if I'm not allowed to call people anti-Mormons? Sauce for the goose, and all that.
Kenngo1969 Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) You'll recall that I pointed out a couple reasons why I think we're ahead of schedule. First, since it was in the context of the BSA thread, I noted that the Church had just backed down from threats to end it affiliation with Scouting over gay scouts/leaders. I would hardly call the statement by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding its affiliation with the Boy Scouts of America a complete 180. As I recall, it voiced its support of the status quo for now, but seemed clearly to adopt a wait-and-see approach so as to allow for evolution in the relationship as further developments might dictate. Second, the Church also reversed it's previous position on LGBT discrimination legislation by backing the Utah law. Those rapid-fire events in the past 6 months are what prompted me to surmise that we may be ahead of schedule to Dehlin's prediction.I do think that leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ are attempting to find common ground and a workable compromise regarding LGBT issues, recognizing that one's sexual orientation should have no bearing on, e.g., the ability and opportunity to earn a living, to have a roof over one's head, and so on. I think that to say that such gestures portend an eventual wholesale abandonment or change of the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ respecting marriage is unwarranted. Companionship is an important element of marriage; it may be the primary motivation behind many marriages. But the Church of Jesus Christ has always been clear that opposite-sex marriage provides the best environment for rearing and nurturing families. Edited September 1, 2015 by Kenngo1969 2
Russell C McGregor Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 And over on the Mark E Peterson thread we have almost 600 posts discussing why doctrine taught by prophets and apostles can be disavowed. And devout members stating emphatically that the position of the church is that the ban never came from God. If that's the case, than it doesn't really matter whether or not it was prophesied that the ban would be lifted -- it was of men, not god. The same justification can be used in 40 years. In 40 years, same sex "marriage" will be as unthinkable in a Gospel context as it is today. 4
Scott Lloyd Posted September 1, 2015 Author Posted September 1, 2015 Since we're not even 1/40th of the way through his timeline... I would think it too soon to declare anything proving you right yet.I've already acknowledged that they gave themselves a very, very generous time cushion. But it is what it is, and the clock is running.
carbon dioxide Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 And over on the Mark E Peterson thread we have almost 600 posts discussing why doctrine taught by prophets and apostles can be disavowed. And devout members stating emphatically that the position of the church is that the ban never came from God. If that's the case, than it doesn't really matter whether or not it was prophesied that the ban would be lifted -- it was of men, not god. The same justification can be used in 40 years.I believe the ban came from God even though not official revelation was written down and published. I also believe that is it 500 times more likely that the Church will restart polygamy than endorse or accept gay marriage. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted September 1, 2015 Author Posted September 1, 2015 I don't know either, but there was this quote from N. Eldon Tanner a little over a decade earlier: "The church has no intention of changing its doctrine on the Negro. Throughout the history of the original Christian church, the Negro never held the priesthood. There’s really nothing we can do to change this. It’s a law of God." ("The Swarming Mormons," Seattle Magazine, December 1967, 60).Context. It can be read as meaning there would be nothing they could do on their own to change the law of God. Is that what he meant to say? I don't know without seeing the quote in context. And there's probably not much chance of that, since he apparently said it in an interview with a magazine writer wherein most of the other stuff he said has likely long since been lost. As a journalist myself, I know how these things often go.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 1, 2015 Author Posted September 1, 2015 Indeed. And I would also argue that retaining membership doesn't preclude misguided predictions either.To apply my new favorite saying from Daniel Peterson, you've beaten that strawman to a pulp; good job.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 1, 2015 Author Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) And over on the Mark E Peterson thread we have almost 600 posts discussing why doctrine taught by prophets and apostles can be disavowed. And devout members stating emphatically that the position of the church is that the ban never came from God. If that's the case, than it doesn't really matter whether or not it was prophesied that the ban would be lifted -- it was of men, not god. The same justification can be used in 40 years.As thread originator, I ask that the Mark E. Peterson thread be left to the Mark E. Peterson thread. I prefer to keep this one focused. Edited September 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted September 1, 2015 Author Posted September 1, 2015 You'll recall that I pointed out a couple reasons why I think we're ahead of schedule. First, since it was in the context of the BSA thread, I noted that the Church had just backed down from threats to end it affiliation with Scouting over gay scouts/leaders. Second, the Church also reversed it's previous position on LGBT discrimination legislation by backing the Utah law. Those rapid-fire events in the past 6 months are what prompted me to surmise that we may be ahead of schedule to Dehlin's prediction.And I countered by disputing that the Church had backed down from anything and by pointing out that issues of civil rights (specifically, employment and housing) have no bearing on the morality of homosexual behavior or the genuineness in the eyes of God of so-called homosexual marriage. As if to bear that out, the September Ensign appears with these two superb articles by Elder Hafen. But again, let's keep this thread focused, please.
Thinking Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 Yes, that's the standard anti-Mormon party line. All the immoralists smugly assume that same sex "marriage" will be so subject. That is because they simply do not understand LDS life and teaching. But it will not happen. In order for it to happen, the Church would have to abandon the concept of moral rectitude, and any regard for the sanctity of marriage. Which is why, not only will it never happen, but no faithful Latter-day Saint anywhere even wants it to happen. As I think I might have mentioned before. I'm not going to predict whether I think the LDS Church will ever allow gay marriage. I just know that there used to be a principle back in the 1800's that Church leaders taught was necessary for exaltation. Revelation changed that. I also thought that Scott's appeal to the Ensign as being somehow binding on the Church was interesting.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 1, 2015 Author Posted September 1, 2015 In 40 years, same sex "marriage" will be as unthinkable in a Gospel context as it is today.And as unthinkable in a gospel context as premarital or extramarital sex is today. 2
Russell C McGregor Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 And as unthinkable in a gospel context as premarital or extramarital sex is today. Good point. I have never managed to understand why people expect the Church to cave in on abominations that are committed by a small percentage of the population when it hasn't budged on lesser sins that are committed by at least half of everybody at some time in their lives.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 1, 2015 Author Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) I'm not going to predict whether I think the LDS Church will ever allow gay marriage. I just know that there used to be a principle back in the 1800's that Church leaders taught was necessary for exaltation. Revelation changed that. I also thought that Scott's appeal to the Ensign as being somehow binding on the Church was interesting.Being the official magazine of the Church and subject to priesthood correlation, the Ensign magazine is enormously more likely than not to reflect the sentiment of the prophets and apostles and official position of the Church. Therefore, those who chirp that the content of the magazine isn't binding on them have some stock-taking to do. Edited September 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
carbon dioxide Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 Good point. I have never managed to understand why people expect the Church to cave in on abominations that are committed by a small percentage of the population when it hasn't budged on lesser sins that are committed by at least half of everybody at some time in their lives.It would seem that the Church would gain far more by removing the bans on beer and coffee than this issue. I have only meet a few gay people in my life but have known multitudes of people who like to drink their booze.
Darren10 Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 39 years, 5 months, 1 week, 3 days, 2 hours, 56 minutes and 29 seconds.But, who's counting.
Damien the Leper Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 Huh. So I've been misreading its title all of these years. So it's really not, The Family: A Proclamation to the World, but rather, The Family: A Proclamation to the Church. Who knew? Thanks for the clarification.The Family: A Proclamation to the World (An LDS Perspective)
Damien the Leper Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 And as unthinkable in a gospel context as premarital or extramarital sex is today.Damn you, Scott. How dare you be balanced in this post! That's twice in one thread.
Recommended Posts