How much influence did the LDS Church have on California Prop 8?

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

There are eternal principles (which do not change), and various practices based upon those principles, which do. The eternal principles are revealed through the Lord's keys, and the practices are legitimate for their time and place when instituted and administered under the Lord's keys.

So there is a legitimate time and place for "non-traditional marriage".  Okay.  I guess Scott Lloyd's countdown clock to the "Dehlin Prediction" isn't all that unrealistic then.

[CV75]

24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So there is a legitimate time and place for "non-traditional marriage".  Okay.  I guess Scott Lloyd's countdown clock to the "Dehlin Prediction" isn't all that unrealistic then.

LOL same-sex marriage wouldn't be a legitimate practice because it isn't based on any eternal principle.

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

There are eternal principles (which do not change), and various practices based upon those principles, which do.

To be clear: what you are saying above is that sexual monogamy is NOT an "eternal principle," and sexual monogamy is one of "various practices" "which do" change. 

Additionally, you're asserting that these "eternal principles" allow for "various practices" such as:

• God sometimes requiring a man to be married to multiple women, as well as
• the practice of some women being married to multiple men, even when said men are also simultaneously married to several other women, as well as
• the practice that sometimes, God considers it 'an abomination' for interracial couples to get married and explicitly prohibited from the blessings of the temple, as opposed to
• other times when interracial marriage entirely blessed by the Holy Spirit of Promise and qualifies for the Sealing Power within the temple...

Do I have all of the above right...?

Quote

LOL same-sex marriage wouldn't be a legitimate practice because it isn't based on any eternal principle.

Can you please specify what are the "eternal principles" that govern the configurations of the former?  Cuz I'm having a hard time following what is the overriding "eternal principle(s)" at play, here.

Edited June 2, 2016 by Daniel2

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

So which is it bluebell. Are you supporting traditional marriage or supporting non traditional marriage. Because it looks like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You realize that the Proclimation on the family condemns JS and other early prophets unless you don't believe it to be an eternal principle. If it is not an eternal principle, then eventually it WILL change. The only question is when

Thank you for this.  It had never crossed my mind that yes, the FP does condemn Joseph. 

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Okay... so if a prophet ever teaches an incorrect doctrine or practice (which apparently has never happened in this dispensation) they would be immediately removed (through death) and the succeeding prophet would undo/reverse whatever was taught?

Here's the exact quote being discussed.  I thought it would help the discussion to read what Pres. Woodruff actually said-

“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty”

Pres. Harold B. Lee said something similar later-

“You keep your eye upon him whom the Lord called, and I say to you now, knowing that I stand in this position, you don’t need to worry about the President of the Church ever leading people astray, because the Lord would remove him out of his place before He would ever allow that to happen.”

And President Hinckley-

“The Church is true. Those who lead it have only one desire, and that is to do the will of the Lord. They seek his direction in all things. There is not a decision of significance affecting the Church and its people that is made without prayerful consideration, going to the fount of all wisdom for direction. Follow the leadership of the Church. God will not let his work be led astray.”

First, none of these teachings state how the prophet would be removed but death seems like a reasonable assumption.  

Second, a prophet is removed if the attempt is made to lead the church astray, before it happened.  The teaching isn't that if the prophet succeeds in leading the church astray eventually God will remove him to help correct the problem.  

That would seem to indicate, to answer your question, that there would be nothing for a subsequent prophet to undo because removing the prophet responsible would stop the 'astray' from ever happening in the first place.  It also shows that, according to the doctrine of this quote which we are discussing, JS's death a few years after introducing polygamy doesn't fit the parameters set forth.

 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Here's the exact quote being discussed.  I thought it would help the discussion to read what Pres. Woodruff actually said-

“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty”

Pres. Harold B. Lee said something similar later-

“You keep your eye upon him whom the Lord called, and I say to you now, knowing that I stand in this position, you don’t need to worry about the President of the Church ever leading people astray, because the Lord would remove him out of his place before He would ever allow that to happen.”

And President Hinckley-

“The Church is true. Those who lead it have only one desire, and that is to do the will of the Lord. They seek his direction in all things. There is not a decision of significance affecting the Church and its people that is made without prayerful consideration, going to the fount of all wisdom for direction. Follow the leadership of the Church. God will not let his work be led astray.”

First, none of these teachings state how the prophet would be removed but death seems like a reasonable assumption.  

Second, a prophet is removed if the attempt is made to lead the church astray, before it happened.  The teaching isn't that if the prophet succeeds in leading the church astray eventually God will remove him to help correct the problem.  

That would seem to indicate, to answer your question, that there would be nothing for a subsequent prophet to undo because removing the prophet responsible would stop the 'astray' from ever happening in the first place.  It also shows that, according to the doctrine of this quote which we are discussing, JS's death a few years after introducing polygamy doesn't fit the parameters set forth.

 

So then this takes us back to doctrinal inerrancy:  The first two quotes suggest that the prophet cannot err when it comes to his role in leading the church.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Here's the exact quote being discussed.  I thought it would help the discussion to read what Pres. Woodruff actually said-

“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty”

Pres. Harold B. Lee said something similar later-

“You keep your eye upon him whom the Lord called, and I say to you now, knowing that I stand in this position, you don’t need to worry about the President of the Church ever leading people astray, because the Lord would remove him out of his place before He would ever allow that to happen.”

And President Hinckley-

“The Church is true. Those who lead it have only one desire, and that is to do the will of the Lord. They seek his direction in all things. There is not a decision of significance affecting the Church and its people that is made without prayerful consideration, going to the fount of all wisdom for direction. Follow the leadership of the Church. God will not let his work be led astray.”

First, none of these teachings state how the prophet would be removed but death seems like a reasonable assumption.  

Second, a prophet is removed if the attempt is made to lead the church astray, before it happened.  The teaching isn't that if the prophet succeeds in leading the church astray eventually God will remove him to help correct the problem.  

That would seem to indicate, to answer your question, that there would be nothing for a subsequent prophet to undo because removing the prophet responsible would stop the 'astray' from ever happening in the first place.  It also shows that, according to the doctrine of this quote which we are discussing, JS's death a few years after introducing polygamy doesn't fit the parameters set forth.

 

Well the principle cant' possibly be true because as we know the explanation behind the priesthood ban, for instance, was wrong.  The Church told us so these days.  So the prophets who taught it were wrong and led people astray, and they didn't get killed or were removed for the error.  Since the principle you are relying on is from fallible men, and we have examples of the principle being wrong, best not to treat it as if it is true. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

So which is it bluebell. Are you supporting traditional marriage or supporting non traditional marriage. Because it looks like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You realize that the Proclimation on the family condemns JS and other early prophets unless you don't believe it to be an eternal principle. If it is not an eternal principle, then eventually it WILL change. The only question is when

I'm sorry but i don't understand what you are saying. 

I'm not talking about polygamy at all, except in regards to prophets being able to lead the church astray.  Rockpond was the poster who introduced polygamy into the thread as an example of the doctrinal fallibility of prophets.

And both monogamy and polygamy are traditional forms of marriage.  Both have existed as legitimate (as in cultural and government/tribal sanctioned) forms of marriage for many thousands of years.

And no, the proclamation does not condemn any prophets.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Well the principle cant' possibly be true because as we know the explanation behind the priesthood ban, for instance, was wrong.  The Church told us so these days.  So the prophets who taught it were wrong and led people astray, and they didn't get killed or were removed for the error.  Since the principle you are relying on is from fallible men, and we have examples of the principle being wrong, best not to treat it as if it is true. 

I disagree.  I very much believe that it can and is true.  But i've been over this with rockpond already so i'll just refer you to our earlier discussion than repeat it all again.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So then this takes us back to doctrinal inerrancy:  The first two quotes suggest that the prophet cannot err when it comes to his role in leading the church.

Again, i don't believe that a prophet has to be doctrinal infallible in order to not lead the church astray.  Refer to my previous post with the analogy about false things being taught to my kids in school but that that not leading their eduction astray.

JS said that though he never claimed to be perfect, there was no error in the revelations that he taught.  That, in my opinion, is a good example of how a prophet can be fallible while never leading the church astray.

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I disagree.  I very much believe that it can and is true.  But i've been over this with rockpond already so i'll just refer you to our earlier discussion than repeat it all again.

Well we can certainly all believe whatever we like, I suppose.  Carry on as you were. 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Well we can certainly all believe whatever we like, I suppose.  Carry on as you were. 

Very true, as this board proves.

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Very true, as this board proves.

A very good thing, indeed.  Many people don't feel like they have outlets to share their perspective because of overly dogmatic views of the majority.  Church settings are that, all too often, in my view. 

[consiglieri]

42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 

First, none of these teachings state how the prophet would be removed but death seems like a reasonable assumption.  

 

 

I used to think this way, too, Bluebell.

That is, until I realized that the Doctrine and Covenants actually sets forth the procedure for the Church president to be tried for his membership.

And that Joseph Smith himself was called before this body several times.

I will see if I can find the passage in a second.

But the question I have is why would God reveal the procedure to remove the Church president from office if he were just going to kill him?

The two don't seem consistent.

 

Here is the passage from D&C 107:

Quote

 

81 There is not any person belonging to the church who is exempt from this council of the church.

 82 And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood;

 83 And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him.

 84 Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness.

 

 

[california boy]

50 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm sorry but i don't understand what you are saying. 

I'm not talking about polygamy at all, except in regards to prophets being able to lead the church astray.  Rockpond was the poster who introduced polygamy into the thread as an example of the doctrinal fallibility of prophets.

And both monogamy and polygamy are traditional forms of marriage.  Both have existed as legitimate (as in cultural and government/tribal sanctioned) forms of marriage for many thousands of years.

And no, the proclamation does not condemn any prophets.

Maybe you could clarify your belief. Do you think the Proclamation on the Family is an eternal principle?

if not, then it can change right?

if it is then anyone who has taught polygamy is teaching against this eternal principle and should be condemned. (You do remember the part in the proclamation that marriage is ONE man and ONE woman right)

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I used to think this way, too, Bluebell.

That is, until I realized that the Doctrine and Covenants actually sets forth the procedure for the Church president to be tried for his membership.

And that Joseph Smith himself was called before this body several times.

I will see if I can find the passage in a second.

But the question I have is why would God reveal the procedure to remove the Church president from office if he were just going to kill him?

The two don't seem consistent.

 

Here is the passage from D&C 107:

 

That's a good point, but it seems pretty simple to explain.  The quote in discussion talks about a president of the church trying to lead the church astray.  It says nothing about keeping a president of the church from committing serious sin and him being personally led astray.  As has been talked about earlier in this thread, a prophet is still human.  He can sin, and sin grieviously if he chose.  No one is arguing against that reality and I don't see the quote as arguing against it either.

Think of sins such as immorality, for example.  Such a sin might require excommunication regardless of who in the church committed it-inactive member or prophet of the church.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

There are eternal principles (which do not change), and various practices based upon those principles, which do. The eternal principles are revealed through the Lord's keys, and the practices are legitimate for their time and place when instituted and administered under the Lord's keys.

The eternal principle is no sex outside of marriage.   I have no problem with eternal principles.  Sex within a legal marriage being a sin is a new idea not supported by scripture

Edited June 2, 2016 by california boy

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

Maybe you could clarify your belief. Do you think the Proclamation on the Family is an eternal principle?

if not, then it can change right?

if it is then anyone who has taught polygamy is teaching against this eternal principle and should be condemned. (You do remember the part in the proclamation that marriage is ONE man and ONE woman right)

The PoF isn't a principle at all, it's a statement of belief, so I sincerely don't know how to answer that question.

I can say that the doctrine of the church is that monogamy is the rule, and polygamy the exception.  Also, that polygamy is only acceptable when commanded by God.  Maybe that answers your question.

[stemelbow]

42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The PoF isn't a principle at all, it's a statement of belief, so I sincerely don't know how to answer that question.

I can say that the doctrine of the church is that monogamy is the rule, and polygamy the exception.  Also, that polygamy is only acceptable when commanded by God.  Maybe that answers your question.

Then why is it not possible for there to be other exceptions to this rule? 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Then why is it not possible for there to be other exceptions to this rule? 

There are many member of the church who do believe it's possible.  There are many members of the church who believe that there is a limit to exceptions and that just because one exists that doesn't mean all possible other exceptions are equally valid. 

Our prophets and apostles have declared that God says it's not possible.  

Those are the basic facts we all have to work with, and we all have to do our best to follow God and not ourselves-beyond that there isn't much more to say on your question.

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There are many member of the church who do believe it's possible.  There are many members of the church who believe that there is a limit to exceptions and that just because one exists that doesn't mean all possible other exceptions are equally valid. 

Our prophets and apostles have declared that God says it's not possible.  

Those are the basic facts we all have to work with, and we all have to do our best to follow God and not ourselves-beyond that there isn't much more to say on your question.

I'm guessing here, but I think you just said yes.  If so, great. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

To be clear: what you are saying above is that sexual monogamy is NOT an "eternal principle," and sexual monogamy is one of "various practices" "which do" change. 

Additionally, you're asserting that these "eternal principles" allow for "various practices" such as:

• God sometimes requiring a man to be married to multiple women, as well as
• the practice of some women being married to multiple men, even when said men are also simultaneously married to several other women, as well as
• the practice that sometimes, God considers it 'an abomination' for interracial couples to get married and explicitly prohibited from the blessings of the temple, as opposed to
• other times when interracial marriage entirely blessed by the Holy Spirit of Promise and qualifies for the Sealing Power within the temple...

Do I have all of the above right...?

Can you please specify what are the "eternal principles" that govern the configurations of the former?  Cuz I'm having a hard time following what is the overriding "eternal principle(s)" at play, here.

I’m saying that the eternal principle of parenthood is legitimately expressed only in the practice of husband-and-wife marriage: “The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife …the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.” The eternal principle is the exercise of agency (“potential”) for parenthood as husband (man, a principle of eternal purpose) and wife (woman, also a principle of eternal purpose); the practice is marriage between man and woman, which can take a number of legitimate forms.

As far as whether you have the bulleted items right, I'm not sure what you are asking, but some have more to do more with policy than with practice; just the same, the eternal principle is legitimately expressed through practice and policy through the Lord’s keys. Policy and practice can legitimately change.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

The eternal principle is no sex outside of marriage.   I have no problem with eternal principles.  Sex within a legal marriage being a sin is a new idea not supported by scripture

No, that is a commandment, which is only the rejoinder to the first commandment, which pertains to the eternal principle of parenthood (or the principle of eternal parenthood), which is practiced through the marriage covenant. I described this above.

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm guessing here, but I think you just said yes.  If so, great. 

I didn't say yes or no.  

I said-some members think so, some members don't, and the prophet has said there isn't (at least in regards to SSM).

[stemelbow]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I didn't say yes or no.  

I said-some members think so, some members don't, and the prophet has said there isn't (at least in regards to SSM).

My question didn't say anything about SSM.  I wasn't asking what other members think.  Oh well. 

[Bobbieaware]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

To make the conclusion you've outlined above, one would have to believe that there is a causal effect between legal recognition of gay marriage and the disintegration of the father/mother family.  I see no reason to believe such a causal relationship exists.

Stick around and you'll see. I told you the normalization of gay marriage is only one of the initial steps on the devil's road to destroying the traditional father/mother family (rampant spousal and child abuse, infidelity and divorce also being numbered among those initial steps).  The adversary knows how important the father/mother family is to the Lord's program and so he will not stop in multiplying his perversions and hammering away at the traditional family until it is abolished and Karl Marx's brave new world of "free love" and the 'community of wives' takes its place. Have you not read the admissions of most radical of gay marriage advocates that their true end-goal is the destruction of the traditional family? Remember, "there is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. (Proverbs 12:14)"