Mystery Meat Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 38 minutes ago, Zakuska said: So you worship the letter of the law that killeth I worship the great spirit that moved upon the face of the waters. Hands down. The God you worship does not exist. 1
consiglieri Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 The language of the First Presidency Letter makes a substantive change in the new policy in the Handbook. This is more than a clarification. It is, indeed, a revision. The problem, of course, is that the revision does not appear to have been made in the Handbook itself. 3
Russell C McGregor Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 1 hour ago, Zakuska said: So all the critics who helped bring about the down fall of the Priesthood ban where "never right"? What critics helped bring about the downfall of the Priesthood ban? I'm well familiar with the circumstances surrounding the ending of the Priesthood ban. Those apostates who tried to force the Church's hand were -- rightly -- excommunicated, and to my knowledge have never repented and returned. Those self-serving opportunists who tried to exploit it to get a following for themselves are largely -- and again, rightly -- forgotten today. 2
Popular Post consiglieri Posted December 10, 2015 Popular Post Posted December 10, 2015 2 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: What critics helped bring about the downfall of the Priesthood ban? I'm well familiar with the circumstances surrounding the ending of the Priesthood ban. Those apostates who tried to force the Church's hand were -- rightly -- excommunicated, and to my knowledge have never repented and returned. Those self-serving opportunists who tried to exploit it to get a following for themselves are largely -- and again, rightly -- forgotten today. Lester Bush to name just one. Not forgotten. Not today. Not ever. 5
Russell C McGregor Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) 7 minutes ago, consiglieri said: The language of the First Presidency Letter makes a substantive change in the new policy in the Handbook. This is more than a clarification. It is, indeed, a revision. The problem, of course, is that the revision does not appear to have been made in the Handbook itself. That assertion is false and unsupportable on its face. The language of the letter of 13 November closely follows the language of Elder Christofferson's video of 6 November. Which was released one day after the policy was leaked to the media. Which leak happened before any local Church leaders had received any training on how to implement it. This argument has been done to death, Consig. The fact is that the only people who actually know what the original intent of the policy was have said that the letter expresses that intent. To assume that contradictory and uninformed speculation to the contrary is true, is to call the prophets and apostles liars. Which, in this illustrious forum, is far safer than calling some anonymous internet cipher a liar, but there you are. Edited December 10, 2015 by Russell C McGregor Spelling 3
hope_for_things Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I wondered, because your flowery soliloquy about "the unknowable God" seemed to be somewhat at odds with LDS belief. In fact, it came across to me as rather Protestant in tone. Here is what Joseph Smith said in the King Follett discourse about the necessity to come to know the true character of God. Please note in particular the portions I have emphasized with boldface type: Thanks for the King Follett quotes. I've got to re-read that, its been a long time since my mission when I read the whole thing. Joseph definitely seemed interested in wanting to know God. Its interesting to look at Joseph's evolution of the concept of God, from very a more protestant trinitarian and modalistic concepts in his earlier years to more tangible and human in later years. Did Joseph comprehend God better in 1843 or in 1833? Who's to say. One thing Joseph didn't say in any of the discourse you quoted was whether its possible to completely comprehend God in this life. I would argue that it isn't possible, and could quote scriptures to support that idea. At any rate, I think we could both agree that attempting to align our purposes and will with the divine is a worthy goal. I would disagree with how certain any of us can be that we are ever in full alignment. I don't think its possible, or even wise to think so. I think its best to be uncertain and constantly grasping for further truth, that I believe is more useful than ever deceiving ourselves that we are ever 100% on God's side. You say you've been LDS all your life, and yet you fail to understand the process by which revelation occurs. Oh my! Let me help you with that. Please see this page, ponder the text I have excerpted below, and examine the links on that page. Remarkably I agree with pretty much everything in the church's definition of revelation, but I imagine we differ on interpretation of the meaning. For example, when they say " Prophets are the only people who can receive revelation for the Church, but they are not the only people who can receive revelation. " I would interpret that to mean that church leaders are uniquely responsible for revelation for the entire body, this is their role as leaders. This doesn't mean that they are always right or that the decisions they make are always in alignment with the divine. Too many examples where they've made mistakes in the past. Besides, God doesn't work that way. Isn't that Satan's plan according to Mormon doctrine, the plan that all we have to do is just follow Satan and everyone will be saved when its all said and done. Takes away from agency in my view. Though individual Church members and even leaders have sometimes expressed personal opinions that turned out to be wrong, I have never known the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve acting as a body in the authority of their callings to do so. This strikes me a delusional thinking. Priesthood ban would be the clearest example in my mind, but polygamy, Adam God, blood atonement and many other examples come to mind to me. But I'm guessing you have explanations for why all of those aren't applicable in your mind. I guess we'll probably just disagree on this one. And yes, based on my faith in God and His apostles and Prophets, and based on the consistency with which the policy conforms to doctrine and principle given in the past, I can eliminate in my own mind the possibility of it being erroneous. The policy doesn't align with the gospel message of Jesus is the core problem to me. Consistency doesn't matter, and I don't think the policy is consistent either. You can be consistently wrong for over 100 years about blacks and the priesthood, or for thousands of years on any issue. Consistency is comforting to the human condition, we don't like change by nature, but it doesn't signal any kind of alignment with God.
hope_for_things Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 8 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: That assertion is false and unsupportable on its face. The language of the letter of 13 November closely follows the language of Elder Christofferson's video of 6 November. Which was released one day after the policy was leaked to the media. Which leak happened before any local Church leaders had received any training on how to implement it. This argument has been done to death, Consig. The fact is that the only people who actually know what the original intent of the policy was have said that the letter expresses that intent. To assume that contradictory and uninformed speculation to the contrary is true, is to call the prophets and apostles liars. Which, in this illustrious forum, is far safer than calling some anonymous internet cipher a liar, but there you are. Please show us where Christofferson said anything about LGBT children and "primary residency" in his video interview. This is the most substantive change from the FP letter on Nov 13th, and it wasn't even hinted at in the earlier interview. 1
consiglieri Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 3 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: That assertion is false and unsupportable on its face. I am not calling anyone a liar, Russell. I am just saying you are mistaken. According to the new policy, baptism at age eight is forbidden to "a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship." The First Presidency Letter took out the "who has lived" component, and makes it apply only to children in that current circumstance. That is a significant revision. Not just a clarification. Here is the language from the policy: Quote "Effective immediately, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a new policy related to the children of gay couples, married or unmarried: "Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender Relationship A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing. A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows: A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met: 1. The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage. 2. The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage." 1
Zakuska Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 59 minutes ago, rongo said: 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: The law. Hands down. Law Giver does not equal Law Maker. God dispensed eternal law to us, but it preceded his existence as God. He followed it to become God. Breaking it would end his Godhood. God breaks his own laws all the time... D&C 64. 10 I, the Lord, will aforgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to bforgive all men. ...
Russell C McGregor Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 6 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I am not calling anyone a liar, Russell. I am just saying you are mistaken. According to the new policy, baptism at age eight is forbidden to "a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship." The First Presidency Letter took out the "who has lived" component, and makes it apply only to children in that current circumstance. That is a significant revision. Not just a clarification. Here is the language from the policy: I'm aware of what the policy says. Now tell me where the letter says differently. The "has lived" applies to the parent, not the child. 1
Russell C McGregor Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Please show us where Christofferson said anything about LGBT children and "primary residency" in his video interview. This is the most substantive change from the FP letter on Nov 13th, and it wasn't even hinted at in the earlier interview. Here is an excerpt: "And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they're living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple. We don't want there to be the conflicts that that would engender." What do the highlighted words mean to you, Hope? 2
Mystery Meat Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 1 minute ago, Russell C McGregor said: Here is an excerpt: "And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they're living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple. We don't want there to be the conflicts that that would engender." What do the highlighted words mean to you, Hope? This is as clear as day to the honest of heart.
consiglieri Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 2 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: I'm aware of what the policy says. Now tell me where the letter says differently. The "has lived" applies to the parent, not the child. If you were aware of what the policy says, I would think it an easy matter for you to see how the First Presidency Letter changes the meaning. Of course the "has lived" applies to the parent, Russell. But read the whole sentence. It is the child of the parent who "has lived" in a "same-gender relationship" who is forbidden baptism at age eight. At least according to the policy. This raised a number of concerns generally, and among people I know, regarding what happens to the children of parents, one of whom "has lived" in a "same-gender relationship" in the past, but does not currently live in a "same-gender relationship." The First Presidency Letter changes the policy by effectively removing the "has lived" element. But to my knowledge, the language in the handbook remains the same. 1
JLHPROF Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 1 hour ago, Zakuska said: So you worship the letter of the law that killeth I worship the great spirit that moved upon the face of the waters. Hands down. If you don't understand the law that makes God God, then you know not what you worship. Without law, God does not exist. 1
JLHPROF Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 34 minutes ago, Zakuska said: God breaks his own laws all the time... D&C 64. 10 I, the Lord, will aforgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to bforgive all men. ... How exactly does this break God's laws? 1
Zakuska Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) 1 hour ago, rongo said: 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: The law. Hands down. Law Giver does not equal Law Maker. God dispensed eternal law to us, but it preceded his existence as God. He followed it to become God. Breaking it would end his Godhood. He requires us to forgive eveyone, yet he gets to pick and choose who he will forgive. Edited December 10, 2015 by Zakuska
JLHPROF Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 1 minute ago, Zakuska said: He rquires us to repent and forgive eveyone yet he gets to pick and choose who he will forgive. That doesn't violate his law. If we had as perfect judgment as he does, we could forgive whom we would forgive as well. Since we don't, we need to forgive everyone because we just don't have all the information like he does.
Zakuska Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) 2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: That doesn't violate his law. If we had as perfect judgment as he does, we could forgive whom we would forgive as well. Since we don't, we need to forgive everyone because we just don't have all the information like he does. Thou shalt not kill. How many did he kill in a flood? How many did he strike dead for not paying their tithing. He does it all the time. He also says... thou shalt not lie. Yet he tells Moses to lie to Pharoah in his next breath. Edited December 10, 2015 by Zakuska
rongo Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 28 minutes ago, consiglieri said: But to my knowledge, the language in the handbook remains the same. The letter serves as an addendum to the policy, both the policy and the addendum letter forming the actual policy itself. There have been other items like that over the years. 1
rongo Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 40 minutes ago, Zakuska said: God breaks his own laws all the time... Are you still LDS, Zak? I'm being completely serious. It seems from your posts lately like you might not be, or might be a Snufferite or some other offshoot.
JLHPROF Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 1 minute ago, Zakuska said: Thou shalt not kill. How many did he kill in a flood? How many did he strike dead for not paying their tithing. He does it all the time. Correct. Is the eternal law against ending mortal life? Or is the eternal law against mortals ending mortal life? Or is the eternal law against shedding innocent blood? Or is the eternal law about killing something else entirely. Because God's work is to bring to pass eternal life, not prolong mortal life. If you don't understand the laws, how can you say God is breaking them? 2
Zakuska Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) 3 minutes ago, rongo said: Are you still LDS, Zak? I'm being completely serious. It seems from your posts lately like you might not be, or might be a Snufferite or some other offshoot. Yup. True Blue. Card Carrying. Edited December 10, 2015 by Zakuska
rongo Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 4 minutes ago, Zakuska said: Yup. True Blue. Card Carrying. Well, at least you're a BYU fan . . . You can't be all bad . . .;)
Zakuska Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) 4 minutes ago, rongo said: Well, at least you're a BYU fan . . . You can't be all bad . . .;) Would it hurt if I told you I turn red during rival week? A lot of my opinions have changed over the past few years as Ive tried to mature a little. Edited December 11, 2015 by Zakuska
consiglieri Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 1 hour ago, Mystery Meat said: This is as clear as day to the honest of heart. And clearly a change from what the policy says. To the honest of heart, at least . . . 1
Recommended Posts