MormonLeaks: Elder Perry on Homosexuality

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

The priesthood ban is now widely understood by faithful LDS to have been a product of culture not revelation. 

"Widely" is a subjective term, but I'm doubting your assertion is anything more substantial than a guess. 

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

The priesthood ban is now widely understood by faithful LDS to have been a product of culture not revelation. Can you point to a genuine revelation that ties marriage equality to God dictating the current direction to the leadership? The closest I recall was Elder Nelsen's account that Monson made a decision in a meeting and the apostles felt the spirit afterward. But was it canonized or actually released to the saint or the world as a bona fide revelation from God to his living oracle? Of course not.

Anyway, "no likelihood" is a silly position to stake out. You can't say that and claim to be rational. The probability is absolutely greater than zero. I did take on a bit of risk by offering 2025 as a date by which we'll have LDS confirmation or at least acquiescence to the legal reality that any couple legally married and faithful is not living in sin but is living in line with the law of chastity. I had wanted to go with 2030 but I guess this may make it more interesting.

Just make sure you're around here eight years from yesterday. I want to see you acknowledge how wrong you are. 

Bob is right. The likelihood of such a thing happening by 2025 -- or ever -- is zero. 

[Honorentheos]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Just make sure you're around here eight years from yesterday. I want to see you acknowledge how wrong you are. 

Bob is right. The likelihood of such a thing happening by 2025 -- or ever -- is zero. 

It's a date, then. But this 8 years from yesterday thing is something you made up. 2025. That's the year.

[Honorentheos]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

"Widely" is a subjective term, but I'm doubting your assertion is anything more substantial than a guess. 

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

Widely understood. You may be excluded from this but that's no one else's problem.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

Widely understood. You may be excluded from this but that's no one else's problem.

This is talking about contrived explanations for the ban, not the ban itself. There has been nothing yet to repudiate it. Certainly not in the "Gospel Topics" essay you're quoting.

Elder Oaks said it is not God's pattern to give explanations for his commandments. When we try to come up with reasons where he has been silent, we are on our own and could be wrong -- in this case, septacularly wrong.

 

Edited August 10, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

It's a date, then. But this 8 years from yesterday thing is something you made up. 2025. That's the year.

So Jan. 1, 2025, then? That's an even shorter period of time. You're shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

I'm sure they very much appreciate your stamp of approval.

I doubt that they care all that much.

 

[Honorentheos]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So Jan. 1, 2025, then? That's an even shorter period of time. You're shooting yourself in the foot.

 

2025 is a year with 365 days in it, but regardless I'm not claiming to be a prophet. I just chose a year. Even if I'm wrong by taking a risk for the sake of Hamba Tun's bet to have meaning it's irrelevant. But I  offered it up and I'll stand by it for the sake of the bet. Just not on your terms, both because you are making them up as you will and also because you aren't actually part of this because you chose not to actually participate. Probably didn't watch enough football or John Wayne growing up...

Edited August 10, 2017 by Honorentheos

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is talking about contrived explanations for the ban, not the ban itself. There has been nothing yet to repudiate it. Certainly not in the "Gospel Topics" essay you're quoting.

Elder Oaks said it is not God's pattern to give explanations for his commandments. When we try to come up with reasons where he has been silent, we are on our own and could be wrong -- in this case, septacularly wrong.

 

Does this work both ways?  Could those who try to attribute past institutional racism to God's will, when no such evidence exists, also be spectacularly wrong?  Or are you just applying that logic to one side?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

2025 is a year with 365 days in it, but regardless I'm not claiming to be a prophet. I just chose a year. Even if I'm wrong by taking a risk for the sake of Hamba Tun's bet to have meaning it's irrelevant. But I  offered it up and I'll stand by it for the sake of the bet. Just not on your terms, both because you are making them up as you will and also because you aren't actually part of this because you chose not to actually participate. Probably didn't watch enough football or John Wayne growing up...

Oh, I'll be observing. Rather closely. It's just that I'm morally opposed to wagering.

So you want till the end of the year then? Dec. 31, 2025? You got it.

Won't make a difference anyway. What you're projecting is not going to happen. Not ever.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Does this work both ways?  Could those who try to attribute past institutional racism to God's will, when no such evidence exists, also be spectacularly wrong?  Or are you just applying that logic to one side?

I don't know what you mean by "institutional racism," but I don't cop to it, whatever it is.

 

[Honorentheos]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is talking about contrived explanations for the ban, not the ban itself. There has been nothing yet to repudiate it. Certainly not in the "Gospel Topics" essay you're quoting.

Elder Oaks said it is not God's pattern to give explanations for his commandments. When we try to come up with reasons where he has been silent, we are on our own and could be wrong -- in this case, septacularly wrong.

 

The ban lacked revelation to support it. The quote I provided explained this if briefly. If you care to prove this wrong, all you have to do is produce the revelation that demands one accept it was God's prophet acting as a prophet. Should be easy if it's the case, right? Especially for a crack veteran journalist.

[Honorentheos]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Oh, I'll be observing. Rather closely. It's just that I'm morally opposed to wagering.

So you want till the end of the year then? Dec. 31, 2025? You got it.

Won't make a difference anyway. What you're projecting is not going to happen. Not ever.

 

Care to make a bet?

 

ETA: Actually, this is really an example of poor ethical judgement. You have, in fact, bet me on this. You already implicitly placed something on the table against me, be it your pride that will be wounded if wrong against the sense of satisfaction you hope to win if I end up losing.

Edited August 10, 2017 by Honorentheos

[ttribe]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I doubt that they care all that much.

 

Exactly. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, Honorentheos said:

The ban lacked revelation to support it. The quote I provided explained this if briefly.

It lacked documentation. That's not the same thing as lacking revelation.
 

Quote

 

If you care to prove this wrong, all you have to do is produce the revelation that demands one accept it was God's prophet acting as a prophet. Should be easy if it's the case, right? Especially for a crack veteran journalist.

 

All I really have to do is point to statements by Spencer W. Kimball and other past Church presidents to the effect that they spent many hours in prayer petitioning God for guidance as to whether it was time to end the restriction and were told no up until June 1, 1978.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Care to make a bet?

 

ETA: Actually, this is really an example of poor ethical judgement. You have, in fact, bet me on this. You inherently placed something on the table, be it your pride or sense of satisfaction you hope to win if I end up losing.

Your quirky definition of wagering is not binding on me.

But I am looking forward to the deadline on your unwise prediction. I won't let it pass unnoticed. You can bet on that!

Edited to add: Would you like periodic updates?

Edited August 10, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Exactly. 

Do you think I'm craving their stamp of approval?

 

[Honorentheos]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Your quirky definition of wagering is not binding on me.

But I am looking forward to the deadline on your unwise prediction. I won't let it pass unnoticed. You can bet on that!

It's not a quirky definition. You hope to gain something if I lose, and will lose something if I win. You're just lying to yourself for dumb reasons that make your ethical issues all the more intractable as you can't face them.

Mormonism sucks at teaching ethics. Seriously. You are a nice new case study to add to this argument. Not only are you incapable of making a moral judgment here but are inhibited from facing the dilemma you created by claiming to not engage in gambling for moral reasons while absolutely engaging in gambling because you narrowly understand what that means. See how Sunday School has poorly equipped you to engage in ethical thinking? And in so doing prevents you from growing as a moral agent through processes of improving self-knowledge?

[Honorentheos]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It lacked documentation. That's not the same thing as lacking revelation.
 

All I really have to do is point to statements by Spencer W. Kimball and other past Church presidents to the effect that they spent many hours in prayer petitioning God for guidance as to whether it was time to end the restriction and were told no up until June 1, 1978.

 

Not really. It doesn't demonstrate the practice was implemented through revelation. In fact, if one accepts some accounts there is a clear shift in thinking around President McKay where it moved from being claimed to be doctrinal to merely a practice of the Church.

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't know what you mean by "institutional racism," but I don't cop to it, whatever it is.

 

Ok.  One sided. Got it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Not really. It doesn't demonstrate the practice was implemented through revelation. In fact, if one accepts some accounts there is a clear shift in thinking around President McKay where it moved from being claimed to be doctrinal to merely a practice of the Church.

I'm not one of those who draws an artificial demarcation between doctrine and "policy." If it came from God, it's good enough for me, whatever you choose to call it.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Ok.  One sided. Got it. 

Now you're not making sense.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

It's not a quirky definition. You hope to gain something if I lose, and will lose something if I win. You're just lying to yourself for dumb reasons that make your ethical issues all the more intractable as you can't face them.

Mormonism sucks at teaching ethics. Seriously. You are a nice new case study to add to this argument. Not only are you incapable of making a moral judgment here but are inhibited from facing the dilemma you created by claiming to not engage in gambling for moral reasons while absolutely engaging in gambling because you narrowly understand what that means. See how Sunday School has poorly equipped you to engage in ethical thinking? And in so doing prevents you from growing as a moral agent through processes of improving self-knowledge?

Yawn.

[Honorentheos]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not one of those who draws an artificial demarcation between doctrine and "policy." If it came from God, it's good enough for me, whatever you choose to call it.

So God was racist?

[Honorentheos]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yawn.

Exactly. Go back to sleep.