Gay Clergy- UMC Church Division

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, rongo said:

That's why I find the obstinance on the part of those who want the Church to liberalize on this to be contrived. They feign ignorance of this, or insist naively that this can simply be superseded by a future revelation, but we're pretty much painted into a corner on this. And happily so, in my book. 

Reiterating this was the primary purpose of the Proclamation on the Family.

Well, one thing our church history proves is that we aren't painted into a corner on this.  It used to be that you had to be a white polygamist for this kind of exaltation.  Revelation changes everything.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

That's why I find the obstinance on the part of those who want the Church to liberalize on this to be contrived. They feign ignorance of this, or insist naively that this can simply be superseded by a future revelation, but we're pretty much painted into a corner on this. And happily so, in my book. 

Reiterating this was the primary purpose of the Proclamation on the Family.

It's not ignorance. For me it's an unwillingness to accept that statements of faith, which barely scratch the surface of explanation, is all that we need to know and all that there is to know.

Statements like Bluebell made are proposed by leaders doctrines, or articles of faith, but there is virtually no theology to back it up. They are statements of belief, not theology.

I'm still waiting to see the theological discussion about how spirits are created beyond the simple statement of belief that conveniently matches lived mortal life as if eternal life is exactly the same. The proclamation on the family is a series of faith statements designed to give legal standing to the church as it pursued(s) legal challenges to SSM.

I want to know how spirits are created. Without that theology, statements like we find in the PotF are just dogmatic claims with no substance.

 

[RevTestament]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

n about how spirits are created beyond the simple statement of belief that conveniently matches lived mortal life as if eternal life is exactly the same. The proclamation on the family is a series of faith statements designed to give legal standing to the church as it pursued(s) legal challenges to SSM.

How so? Please elaborate.

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Statements like Bluebell made are proposed by leaders doctrines, or articles of faith, but there is virtually no theology to back it up. They are statements of belief, not theology.

 

"Eliza R. Snow, a Church leader and poet, rejoiced over the doctrine that we are, in a full and absolute sense, children of God. “I had learned to call thee Father, / Thru thy Spirit from on high,” she wrote, “But, until the key of knowledge / Was restored, I knew not why.” Latter-day Saints have also been moved by the knowledge that their divine parentage includes a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father. Expressing that truth, Eliza R. Snow asked, “In the heav’ns are parents single?” and answered with a resounding no: “Truth eternal / Tells me I’ve a mother there.” That knowledge plays an important role in Latter-day Saint belief. As Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles wrote, “Our theology begins with heavenly parents. Our highest aspiration is to be like them.”

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

How so? Please elaborate.

If I understand correctly, HJW is stating that it isn't "theology" because so many of the statements in the Family Proclamation can't be backed up with scripture or revelation.  I agree with him that they are statements of faith.  And it does seem to have been produced to provide legal standing for the church in their fight against marriage equality.

[rongo]

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Statements like Bluebell made are proposed by leaders doctrines, or articles of faith, but there is virtually no theology to back it up. They are statements of belief, not theology.

rockpond:

 I agree with him that they are statements of faith.

Interesting that both of you differentiate between theology and statements of faith. Statements of faith are theology; that's what theology means. 

In Mormon theology, going all the way back to Joseph Smith, up through Journal of Discourses, through the teaching of the prophets up to the present, man/woman parent couples have always been, without exception, the doctrinal basic family unit in the higher levels of the CK. So, to say "that's just a statement of faith, I'm still waiting on Mormon theology" seems silly. 

Whether spirits are created through intercourse between exalted parents (Journal of Discourses explanation), or whether exalted parents form them by commanding the elements and intelligences doesn't matter. Mormon theology is that only duly sealed man/woman couples can/may do this. 

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

rockpond:

 

 

Interesting that both of you differentiate between theology and statements of faith. Statements of faith are theology; that's what theology means. 

In Mormon theology, going all the way back to Joseph Smith, up through Journal of Discourses, through the teaching of the prophets up to the present, man/woman parent couples have always been, without exception, the doctrinal basic family unit in the higher levels of the CK. So, to say "that's just a statement of faith, I'm still waiting on Mormon theology" seems silly. 

Whether spirits are created through intercourse between exalted parents (Journal of Discourses explanation), or whether exalted parents form them by commanding the elements and intelligences doesn't matter. Mormon theology is that only duly sealed man/woman couples can/may do this. 

If any statement of faith becomes part of our theology, than our theology is pretty nebulous.

I suppose I was thinking of "theology" as our doctrine.  A system of religious beliefs and ideas.

Journal of Discourses was removed from our canon... is it still considered part of LDS theology?  Part of LDS doctrine?  How do you define these things?

[HappyJackWagon]

29 minutes ago, rongo said:

Interesting that both of you differentiate between theology and statements of faith. Statements of faith are theology; that's what theology means. 

In Mormon theology, going all the way back to Joseph Smith, up through Journal of Discourses, through the teaching of the prophets up to the present, man/woman parent couples have always been, without exception, the doctrinal basic family unit in the higher levels of the CK. So, to say "that's just a statement of faith, I'm still waiting on Mormon theology" seems silly. 

Whether spirits are created through intercourse between exalted parents (Journal of Discourses explanation), or whether exalted parents form them by commanding the elements and intelligences doesn't matter. Mormon theology is that only duly sealed man/woman couples can/may do this. 

No. Statements of faith are not theology.

Quote

Theology is the critical study of the nature of the divine. It is taught as an academic discipline, typically in universities, seminaries and schools of divinity.^[1]

Theology is more academic and systematic in its approach to religion. It is more than dogma. It is explanatory and it is cohesive. There is a continuity to theology that makes a faith proposition and then attempts to explain the strengths and weaknesses of the proposition in an attempt to dig deeper.

I haven't seen anything explanatory about how spirits are created/organized. Do you have a reference I could review?

ETA- right or wrong, this is what I'm thinking about when I say there isn't any theology around creation of spirits.

Edited May 1, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[bluebell]

47 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's not ignorance. For me it's an unwillingness to accept that statements of faith, which barely scratch the surface of explanation, is all that we need to know and all that there is to know.

I'm still waiting to see the theological discussion about how spirits are created beyond the simple statement of belief that conveniently matches lived mortal life as if eternal life is exactly the same. The proclamation on the family is a series of faith statements designed to give legal standing to the church as it pursued(s) legal challenges to SSM.

I want to know how spirits are created. Without that theology, statements like we find in the PotF are just dogmatic claims with no substance.

 

Though the PotF is not considered doctrine, parts of it are-

Basic Doctrine.  Number 8 specifically.

Besides that, we don't need to know how spirits are created.  If we know under what conditions spirit children are possible we can answer this question.  And our theology does cover that.  

People knew that it took a man and a woman to make a child a long time before they understood anything about eggs/sperm/gestation.  They didn't need to know how everything worked before they could state as fact that the presence of a male and a female were necessary.  

[RevTestament]

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If I understand correctly, HJW is stating that it isn't "theology" because so many of the statements in the Family Proclamation can't be backed up with scripture or revelation.  I agree with him that they are statements of faith.  And it does seem to have been produced to provide legal standing for the church in their fight against marriage equality.

Again. How so? I do not understand this claim that it provides some kind of legal standing for SSM cases. There is no fight against marriage "equality" as far as I'm concerned, but that is another issue I don't care to debate - the Lord has not recognized SSM as "equal to" a marriage between a man and a woman as He designed for them. It is purely a creature of man and man's laws. God cannot tolerate the least sin tho, and will never sanction SSM - ever. He expects men to learn natural affection for women - something increasingly hard to do in our ever-secularizing society which seems to expect its children to make gender choices at 3 years old. To me that simply shows how sick our society has become. It could be worse than Sodom and Gomorrah. 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Theology is more academic and systematic in its approach to religion. It is more than dogma.

From a certain point of view, but there are equally valid points of view that regard theology as simply "what a given religion teaches." 

How would you define Mormon theology, then?

It is explanatory and it is cohesive. There is a continuity to theology that makes a faith proposition and then attempts to explain the strengths and weaknesses of the proposition in an attempt to dig deeper.

The mainstream, orthodox Mormon teachings in the Proclamation (family, gender, marriage, etc.) are "explanatory and cohesive" to orthodox Mormons. It is the heterodox Mormons who don't see them that way --- but that's what makes them heterodox. And, they won't be satisfied with the teachings/doctrines/theology until they change to be what they want them to be.

I haven't seen anything explanatory about how spirits are created/organized. Do you have a reference I could review?

Journal of Discourses okay? I know that it's not canonical in modern times, but it represents what has been taught. 

But even in the absence of specific explanations of the mechanics of spirit creation, you do agree, though, that Mormon doctrine/teachings/theology unitedly and consistently declare that only sealed and exalted man/woman couples are able/allowed to create spirit children? Don't you? 

If so, then the mechanics (whether intercourse or "Play-Doh" or whatever creation) don't matter, and don't have a bearing on this. At least as far as Mormon teaching/doctrine/theology is concerned. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Though the PotF is not considered doctrine, parts of it are-

Basic Doctrine.  Number 8 specifically.

Besides that, we don't need to know how spirits are created.  If we know under what conditions spirit children are possible we can answer this question.  And our theology does cover that.  

People knew that it took a man and a woman to make a child a long time before they understood anything about eggs/sperm/gestation.  They didn't need to know how everything worked before they could state as fact that the presence of a male and a female were necessary.  

Doctrines are not necessarily theology either. They are more of a compilation of faith claims and dogmatic statements.

Doctrines are merely whatever the current teaching of the church is. It isn't necessarily systematic, nor does it seek to answer all questions.

 

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Doctrines are not necessarily theology either. They are more of a compilation of faith claims and dogmatic statements.

Doctrines are merely whatever the current teaching of the church is. It isn't necessarily systematic, nor does it seek to answer all questions.

I think if you're looking for, or insisting on, some Thomas Aquinas volume-length treatments of theology before accepting that this is what the Church teaches and has always taught ---- you won't find it. And that's really the point, isn't it?

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

From a certain point of view, but there are equally valid points of view that regard theology as simply "what a given religion teaches." 

I view that as doctrine which is not the same of theology.

How would you define Mormon theology, then?

I've already explained. Read previous posts.

The mainstream, orthodox Mormon teachings in the Proclamation (family, gender, marriage, etc.) are "explanatory and cohesive" to orthodox Mormons. It is the heterodox Mormons who don't see them that way --- but that's what makes them heterodox. And, they won't be satisfied with the teachings/doctrines/theology until they change to be what they want them to be.

No, I won't be satisfied with them until they coherently account for the gaps in the doctrine...such as, how are spirits created.

Journal of Discourses okay? I know that it's not canonical in modern times, but it represents what has been taught. 

No. That doesn't really work because it is so diverse. I don't think you'd find anyone, orthodox or not, who would accept that all of the Journals of Discourses are doctrine or theology simply because church leaders taught it. Too much weirdness in there. I don't know anyone who would accept everything in the Journals.

But even in the absence of specific explanations of the mechanics of spirit creation, you do agree, though, that Mormon doctrine/teachings/theology unitedly and consistently declare that only sealed and exalted man/woman couples are able/allowed to create spirit children? Don't you? 

Again, doctrines and teachings (mostly synonymous) are not the same as a systematic theology on spirit creation and/or life in a pre/post-mortal world.

If so, then the mechanics (whether intercourse or "Play-Doh" or whatever creation) don't matter, and don't have a bearing on this. At least as far as Mormon teaching/doctrine/theology is concerned. 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think if you're looking for, or insisting on, some Thomas Aquinas volume-length treatments of theology before accepting that this is what the Church teaches and has always taught ---- you won't find it. And that's really the point, isn't it?

I'm not looking for Aquinas but we do have lots of prophets and apostles who could talk about this. But they don't. The reason all of this matters is because this one question, for me, is at the heart of the whole LGBT/SSM issue. I see no plan of happiness for LGBT individuals being taught by the church unless they live alone in eternity. That is a plan of sadness, not happiness.

And claiming this is what the church has "always" taught isn't accurate. Teachings about marriage, family, and eternity have changed in the past. It's been adapted over time. it's evolved. There needs to be a plan of happiness for all of God's children, not one for the majority, and then silence for the others. This represents a major gap in LDS doctrine that could be explained via a systematic theology that answer essential questions

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Again. How so? I do not understand this claim that it provides some kind of legal standing for SSM cases. There is no fight against marriage "equality" as far as I'm concerned, but that is another issue I don't care to debate - the Lord has not recognized SSM as "equal to" a marriage between a man and a woman as He designed for them. It is purely a creature of man and man's laws. God cannot tolerate the least sin tho, and will never sanction SSM - ever. He expects men to learn natural affection for women - something increasingly hard to do in our ever-secularizing society which seems to expect its children to make gender choices at 3 years old. To me that simply shows how sick our society has become. It could be worse than Sodom and Gomorrah. 

I'm sorry -- I didn't realize where you were in your thinking on this subject.

Best of luck to you.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Doctrines are not necessarily theology either. They are more of a compilation of faith claims and dogmatic statements.

Doctrines are merely whatever the current teaching of the church is. It isn't necessarily systematic, nor does it seek to answer all questions.

 

Theology just means the study of God, and doctrine is instructions or teachings about God.  LDS theology creates the current doctrines of the church.

And our current doctrine, which comes from our theology, is that only a man and woman who are sealed can create eternal offspring.

[Gray]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

That's why I find the obstinance on the part of those who want the Church to liberalize on this to be contrived. They feign ignorance of this, or insist naively that this can simply be superseded by a future revelation, but we're pretty much painted into a corner on this. And happily so, in my book. 

Reiterating this was the primary purpose of the Proclamation on the Family.

We were painted into the corner on polygamy too, once upon a time. We just went ahead and walked right over the wet paint. 

[Damien the Leper]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

That's why I find the obstinance on the part of those who want the Church to liberalize on this to be contrived. They feign ignorance of this, or insist naively that this can simply be superseded by a future revelation, but we're pretty much painted into a corner on this. And happily so, in my book. 

Reiterating this was the primary purpose of the Proclamation on the Family.

Very good point. I once thought along the lines of liberalization but progressivism would mandate a huge overhaul of accepted doctrines. We must remain realistic about this after all. Romanticizing a liberal Utopia for the LDS church is fruitless.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Very good point. I once thought along the lines of liberalization but progressivism would mandate a huge overhaul of accepted doctrines. We must remain realistic about this after all. Romanticizing a liberal Utopia for the LDS church is fruitless.

Yes, "progressivism" is not really a strong suit for the LDS Church.  For us, change seems to come through revelation AFTER the majority of the world has figured it out:  monogamy, race equality, feminism.  I assume LGBT equality will be the same.

[Darren10]

23 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't see any justification for claiming doctrines and expectations (standards) haven't changed. Not only have they changed on numerous subjects over the past 180 years but even on the LGBT subject this have shifted over the last few. Standards and doctrines seem to be in constant flux as the evolve to match the needs of the members and society at large.

To love and to serve all have always been the standard LDS expectation for all its members. How that is done shapes LDS culture.  The culture has changed, not it's doctrines or standards. 

Edited May 2, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm not looking for Aquinas but we do have lots of prophets and apostles who could talk about this. But they don't. The reason all of this matters is because this one question, for me, is at the heart of the whole LGBT/SSM issue. I see no plan of happiness for LGBT individuals being taught by the church unless they live alone in eternity. That is a plan of sadness, not happiness.

And claiming this is what the church has "always" taught isn't accurate. Teachings about marriage, family, and eternity have changed in the past. It's been adapted over time. it's evolved. There needs to be a plan of happiness for all of God's children, not one for the majority, and then silence for the others. This represents a major gap in LDS doctrine that could be explained via a systematic theology that answer essential questions

"I see no plan of happiness for LGBT individuals being taught by the church unless they live alone in eternity. That is a plan of sadness, not happiness." - This us true for anyone who fails to keep his/her covenants. Heterosexual or homosexuals. The standards are the same for everyone. There is no "gay standard" from the Church.

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

Theology just means the study of God, and doctrine is instructions or teachings about God.  LDS theology creates the current doctrines of the church.

And our current doctrine, which comes from our theology, is that only a man and woman who are sealed can create eternal offspring.

That can change provided more information.  I'm open to the possibility so much so on this point I think change will come and relatively soon.  

Its happened before it'll happen again.  We're still building in the direction of truth.  We don't own the market, nor can we pretend our belief is complete.  Peace to you bluebell

[california boy]

16 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Again. How so? I do not understand this claim that it provides some kind of legal standing for SSM cases. There is no fight against marriage "equality" as far as I'm concerned, but that is another issue I don't care to debate - the Lord has not recognized SSM as "equal to" a marriage between a man and a woman as He designed for them. It is purely a creature of man and man's laws. God cannot tolerate the least sin tho, and will never sanction SSM - ever. He expects men to learn natural affection for women - something increasingly hard to do in our ever-secularizing society which seems to expect its children to make gender choices at 3 years old. To me that simply shows how sick our society has become. It could be worse than Sodom and Gomorrah. 

So just how does your God expect someone who is gay to learn natural affection for a woman?  Because if you don't have a path that a gay person can follow to learn this natural affection, then your whole argument goes down the tubes. 

[HappyJackWagon]

8 hours ago, Darren10 said:

"I see no plan of happiness for LGBT individuals being taught by the church unless they live alone in eternity. That is a plan of sadness, not happiness." - This us true for anyone who fails to keep his/her covenants. Heterosexual or homosexuals. The standards are the same for everyone. There is no "gay standard" from the Church.

I disagree. Gay people are expected to follow the law of chastity +. Hetero people can date, kiss, cuddle, etc. yet those things are unacceptable for gay people in the church.

What is the path in eternity for a gay person who has made and kept all covenants and never entered any kind of SS relationship? What does that look like? What is that person's plan of happiness? Where is the theology on that?