Scrutinizing general conference

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What else is new? ...but deep down you know I'm right!

Not at all.  Personally, I think you are wresting the scriptures.  I wasn't going to say that but given your comment here, I will.

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Not at all.  Personally, I think you are wresting the scriptures.  I wasn't going to say that but given your comment here, I will.

Well, we really don't want to go off on a tangent. So if we keep to the actual covenants (sacrament prayer, baptismal prayer, covenat of the priesthood, etc.), I'll be happy to consider how you think I am wresting those, or how you think it is fine to make the substitutions I've been pointing out are not fine.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'm not sure what you want me to say here.  I get your position.  But, I don't see any reason why two men or two women can't be the participants in that covenant.

From the following letter from the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, dated June 29, 2015:

Quote

Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We invite all to review and understand the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

And these remarks by Elder Christofferson (emphases added):

Quote

“We recognize that same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States and some other countries and that people have the right, if they choose, to enter into those, and we understand that. But that is not a right that exists in the Church. That’s the clarification.”

Further, he said, in the United States and in other countries around the world there needed to be some distinction between “what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord.”

“It’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt,” Elder Christofferson explained. “We think it’s possible and mandatory, incumbent upon us as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, to yield no ground in the matter of love and sympathy and help and brotherhood and serving in doing all we can for anybody; at the same time maintaining the standards He maintained.

“That was the Savior’s pattern. He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind. It was what it was and is what it is and that’s where we are, but His compassion, of course, was unexcelled and His desire and willingness and proactive efforts to minister, to heal, to bless, to lift, and to bring people toward the path that leads to happiness never ceased.”

Elder Christofferson said Church leaders will not yield on their efforts to help all people find what brings happiness, “but we know sin does not.”

“There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ,” he said.

And these remarks by Elder Oaks (emphases added):

Quote

Converted Latter-day Saints believe that the family proclamation, issued nearly a quarter century ago and now translated into scores of languages, is the Lord’s reemphasis of the gospel truths we need to sustain us through current challenges to the family. Two examples are same-sex marriage and cohabitation without marriage. Just 20 years after the family proclamation, the United States Supreme Court authorized same-sex marriage, overturning thousands of years of marriage being limited to a man and a woman. The shocking percentage of United States children born to a mother not married to the father came more gradually:  percent in 1960,5 32 percent in 1995, and now 40 percent.

The family proclamation begins by declaring “that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.” It also affirms that “gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”

...

The inspiration identifying the need for a proclamation on the family came to the leadership of the Church over 23 years ago. It was a surprise to some who thought the doctrinal truths about marriage and the family were well understood without restatement. Nevertheless, we felt the confirmation and we went to work. Subjects were identified and discussed by members of the Quorum of the Twelve for nearly a year. Language was proposed, reviewed, and revised. Prayerfully we continually pleaded with the Lord for His inspiration on what we should say and how we should say it. We all learned “line upon line, precept upon precept,” as the Lord has promised (D&C 98:12).

During this revelatory process, a proposed text was presented to the First Presidency, who oversee and promulgate Church teachings and doctrine. After the Presidency made further changes, the proclamation on the family was announced by the President of the Church, Gordon B. Hinckley. In the women’s meeting of September 23, 1995, he introduced the proclamation with these words: “With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn.”

I testify that the proclamation on the family is a statement of eternal truth, the will of the Lord for His children who seek eternal life. It has been the basis of Church teaching and practice for the last 22 years and will continue so for the future. Consider it as such, teach it, live by it, and you will be blessed as you press forward toward eternal life.

These statements from men we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators are not "reasons?"  At all?  They carry no weight?

What, then, would you accept, if not unequivocal counsel such as that given above?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 2, 2017 by smac97

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Well, we really don't want to go off on a tangent. So if we keep to the actual covenants (sacrament prayer, baptismal prayer, covenat of the priesthood, etc.), I'll be happy to consider how you think I am wresting those, or how you think it is fine to make the substitutions I've been pointing out are not fine.

I don't think there's a point in having that discussion.  You have a testimony of your understanding of the scriptures.  I have a testimony of my understanding of the scriptures.  I'm good leaving it at that.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From the following letter from the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, dated June 29, 2015:

And these remarks by Elder Christofferson (emphases added):

And these remarks by Elder Oaks (emphases added):

These statements from men we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators are not "reasons?"  At all?  They carry no weight?

What, then, would you accept, if not unequivocal counsel such as that given above?

Thanks,

-Smac

You and I have been around and around this before.  I'll pass on having that discussion again.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You and I have been around and around this before.  I'll pass on having that discussion again.

I understand.  I'll not press the matter.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't think there's a point in having that discussion.  You have a testimony of your understanding of the scriptures.  I have a testimony of my understanding of the scriptures.  I'm good leaving it at that.

But you do agree that you cannot substitute water for bread  in D&C 20:77. And you do agree that you cannot substitute some other element for water in D&C 20:73-74. And that in D&C 84:33-39, you cannot substitute servant for Father or Son, or any of them for each other. For some reason you are not agreeing that husband cannot substitute for wife in the marriage covenant.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But you do agree that you cannot substitute water for bread  in D&C 20:77. And you do agree that you cannot substitute some other element for water in D&C 20:73-74. And that in D&C 84:33-39, you cannot substitute servant for Father or Son, or any of them for each other. For some reason you are not agreeing that husband cannot substitute for wife in the marriage covenant.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

That is marriage.  The union of male and female by the Lord.
No other definition is actually marriage.

" By virtue of the holy priesthood and the authority vested in me, I pronounce you, _________ and _________, legally and lawfully husband and wife for time and all eternity;"

That is the ordinance that creates marriage in the eyes of God.  No option for husband and husband or wife and wife.
Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. - Joseph Smith
There is no ordinance for same sex marriage.

Bottom line is that Same Sex marriage is NOT part of the gospel and does not meet the definition of marriage.

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But you do agree that you cannot substitute water for bread  in D&C 20:77. And you do agree that you cannot substitute some other element for water in D&C 20:73-74. And that in D&C 84:33-39, you cannot substitute servant for Father or Son, or any of them for each other. For some reason you are not agreeing that husband cannot substitute for wife in the marriage covenant.

I don't believe that the man and woman entering into a sealing covenant are symbols so I don't think your analogy is relevant.

[CV75]

21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

That is marriage.  The union of male and female by the Lord.
No other definition is actually marriage.

" By virtue of the holy priesthood and the authority vested in me, I pronounce you, _________ and _________, legally and lawfully husband and wife for time and all eternity;"

That is the ordinance that creates marriage in the eyes of God.  No option for husband and husband or wife and wife.
Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. - Joseph Smith
There is no ordinance for same sex marriage.

Bottom line is that Same Sex marriage is NOT part of the gospel and does not meet the definition of marriage.

Yes. I'm approaching it from another angle, the material construct of the covenants, whether one views these components as symbols or not. It really does not matter.

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't believe that the man and woman entering into a sealing covenant are symbols so I don't think your analogy is relevant.

But you agree that their lives are symbols and that they are entering the covenant with these lives. The temple marriage covenant is worded a certain way, just as the other covenants are worded and performed with components that cannot be interchanged. From my standpoint, the components are both actual and symbolic; the bread and water for example are symbolic, but they are also the actual requirements for administering and participating in the covenant. The same goes for the man and woman in the marriage covenant.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But you agree that their lives are symbols and that they are entering the covenant with these lives. The temple marriage covenant is worded a certain way, just as the other covenants are worded and performed with components that cannot be interchanged. From my standpoint, the components are both actual and symbolic; the bread and water for example are symbolic, but they are also the actual requirements for administering and participating in the covenant. The same goes for the man and woman in the marriage covenant.

I agreed that, as President Hinckley said, our lives should be symbols of the Living Christ.  That is not the same as saying that they are symbols in a marriage covenant.

You take a second leap that I also don't find justified in insisting that man and woman are also symbols of the required law of opposition.  I don't think that is correct, nor justified.  My wife and I entered the marriage covenant as helpmeets and made certain promises with each other and God.

[Jeanne]

I know that I am coming from a different perspective on things here.  I understand the covenants and promises of the Lord that many are speaking about.  I am hoping just because I need to shout out a little that some with take this with some open understanding on how all this looks to one on the outside.  In high school, I was engaged to be married in the Temple...that did not work out..(he stepped out on me) ...and thank goodness..I was way too young.  So, when I found my husband at the age of 22, I was so amazed at what it was all about..and I took with him a wonderful little boy at the age of 3.  We had a civil marriage and on that day...with both of us believing in God and in our future , we made promises and a covenant to each other that we would be faithful and true..with great love and friendship.  Also, on this day...we were blessed  by a loving God with extending love and support of family and friends.  Our vows to eachother was filled with hope and tears that we would raise together a good family. 

I know all this isn't scriptual or anything...but we did make an important covenant to eachother with witnesses.  We felt great love and it was the beginning of something really beautiful in the way that we cared, shared and brought our babies into the world.  I am just saying that though it was not a Temple marriage, the value of the covenants and promises we made were made with God's blessing.  It is hard for me to see on this thread that this would be so diminished...as well as the marriages/partnerships of Daniel2/CB...that this would not be a relevant to our Heavenly Father...as say all of your marriages.  You cannot diminish my promise...and (deep down you know this)... God would not want you to.

Forgive me for venting..but there are places in this thread that are hurtful.  There are places in this thread that in the whole world of scriptures...that don't mean a thing...because nobody can take that away from me; and someday, my hope is that those promises that our gay brother's and sister's have with each other will stand just as important to LDS members as they do to the God I believe in.

Hugs, Jeanne

[CV75]

50 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agreed that, as President Hinckley said, our lives should be symbols of the Living Christ.  That is not the same as saying that they are symbols in a marriage covenant.

You take a second leap that I also don't find justified in insisting that man and woman are also symbols of the required law of opposition.  I don't think that is correct, nor justified.  My wife and I entered the marriage covenant as helpmeets and made certain promises with each other and God.

The man and woman represent the lives they live, which represent the Lord's divine order for His begotten sons and daughters, just as the bread represents the body and the water the blood. So yes, husband and wife, and bread and water are specific components of their respective covenants an also serve as symbols of principles entailed in the covenant.

You don't have to worry about the law of opposition anymore; if you understand the above you understand all I intended you to take from it. The man and woman are as different yet complimentary as water and bread, air and water, servants and God, etc. Or as different and complimentary as blood and flesh, birth and rebirth, mortals and deity, etc.

Edited November 2, 2017 by CV75

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The man and woman represent the lives they live, which represent the Lord's divine order for His begotten sons and daughters, just as the bread represents the body and the water the blood. So yes, husband and wife, and bread and water are specific components of their respective covenants an also serve as symbols of principles entailed in the covenant.

You don't have to worry about the law of opposition anymore; if you understand the above you understand all I intended you to take from it. The man and woman are as different yet complimentary as water and bread, air and water, servants and God, etc. Or as different and complimentary as blood and flesh, birth and rebirth, mortals and deity, etc.

No.  Sorry.  I still don’t agree with the interpretation of man and woman as symbols. 

[kiwi57]

On 10/30/2017 at 6:08 PM, rockpond said:

Jesus did say to be nice to everybody. 

No actually, He didn't.

What He actually said was "Love one another."

Mere "be nice to everybody" might let us be persuaded into thinking that it's more important to let people feel good than to invite them to be good.

I remind you that Jesus, who epitomized the love He exhorted us to have, didn't always speak smooth things to people, the way you think the leaders of the Church should. I'm sure you recall that He told the woman taken in adultery that He didn't condemn her; but in the very next sentence, He said "Go and sin no more."

If she'd been a 21st century snowflake, she'd have immediately started tweeting up a storm about how that judgmental religious fuddy-duddy accused her of "sinning;" how He was too close-minded to "accept her as she is," and she'd wind it all up by kvetching about how He had "REJECTED" her!

But I do have a question about that, Rockpond: how enthusiastically would you be agreeing with her? How grieved and saddened would you be about Jesus' backward attitude?

[kiwi57]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'm not sure what you want me to say here.  I get your position.  But, I don't see any reason why two men or two women can't be the participants in that covenant.

Then you don't understand the covenant.

[kiwi57]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

Not at all.  Personally, I think you are wresting the scriptures.  I wasn't going to say that but given your comment here, I will.

If that's what you really think, then you have no sense of irony.

[kiwi57]

On 10/30/2017 at 5:50 PM, rockpond said:

I’m planning to respond to the other posts directed at me tomorrow when I have more time. But, in a totally unrelated discussion with family members about Tom Christofferson’s new book, I was pointed to an interview he did with LDSLiving.com.  As I read that interview, I came across this quote that relates to our topic:

“Soon afterward, in 1984, Christofferson decided he was unable to reconcile his homosexuality with his membership in the Church, so he asked to be excommunicated. “I had to find out if I could be gay and happy, and I wanted to feel like I had some integrity about my journey. And at that time, if you just identified as gay, that was enough to be excommunicated. And so that’s what happened.”

Bold added by me. 

Gosh I'm stupid. no question about it.

Scott, if anyone ever tells you that I'm smart, you can tell them that I'm stupid. And not only did I admit it, but I can even prove it.

See the above quote?

Now let's look at it again, with the distracting bolding removed.

On 10/30/2017 at 5:50 PM, rockpond said:

“Soon afterward, in 1984, Christofferson decided he was unable to reconcile his homosexuality with his membership in the Church, so he asked to be excommunicated. “I had to find out if I could be gay and happy, and I wanted to feel like I had some integrity about my journey. And at that time, if you just identified as gay, that was enough to be excommunicated. And so that’s what happened.”

Do you see it now?

Okay, let's look at it again:

On 10/30/2017 at 5:50 PM, rockpond said:

“Soon afterward, in 1984, Christofferson decided he was unable to reconcile his homosexuality with his membership in the Church, so he asked to be excommunicated. “I had to find out if I could be gay and happy, and I wanted to feel like I had some integrity about my journey. And at that time, if you just identified as gay, that was enough to be excommunicated. And so that’s what happened.”

Now can you see it?

You see, not only was Tom Christofferson not excommunicated because he "just identified as gay," he didn't even claim that that's what happened.

He said that "he asked to be excommunicated."

Now I hear you asking, "Why would he do that?"

Why, thank you for asking. I'll tell you.

He "asked to be excommunicated" because - are you ready for this? - name removal wasn't a thing in 1984.

Prior to the introduction of "name removal" sometime in the mid to late 1990's, a person wanting to voluntarily withdraw from Church membership had to "request excommunication," and a (usually brief and fairly pro-forma) Church Disciplinary Council would be convened.

So Tom Christofferson may have genuinely held the opinion that he could be excommunicated because he "just identified as gay," but his opinion is unsupported by his experience. He wasn't excommunicated because he "just identified as gay;" he was excommunicated because he asked to be.

Now, lest anyone should dishonestly describe my post here as "reinterpretation" or something, let me remind you, again, of what our one and only source of information - helpfully provided by Rockpond himself - actually said:

On 10/30/2017 at 5:50 PM, rockpond said:

“Soon afterward, in 1984, Christofferson decided he was unable to reconcile his homosexuality with his membership in the Church, so he asked to be excommunicated.”

Q.E.D.

Edited November 3, 2017 by kiwi57

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

No actually, He didn't.

What He actually said was "Love one another."

Mere "be nice to everybody" might let us be persuaded into thinking that it's more important to let people feel good than to invite them to be good.

I remind you that Jesus, who epitomized the love He exhorted us to have, didn't always speak smooth things to people, the way you think the leaders of the Church should. I'm sure you recall that He told the woman taken in adultery that He didn't condemn her; but in the very next sentence, He said "Go and sin no more."

If she'd been a 21st century snowflake, she'd have immediately started tweeting up a storm about how that judgmental religious fuddy-duddy accused her of "sinning;" how He was too close-minded to "accept her as she is," and she'd wind it all up by kvetching about how He had "REJECTED" her!

But I do have a question about that, Rockpond: how enthusiastically would you be agreeing with her? How grieved and saddened would you be about Jesus' backward attitude?

I firmly that I (and she) should follow His command and “go and sin no more”.

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Gosh I'm stupid. no question about it.

Scott, if anyone ever tells you that I'm smart, you can tell them that I'm stupid. And not only did I admit it, but I can even prove it.

See the above quote?

Now let's look at it again, with the distracting bolding removed.

Do you see it now?

Okay, let's look at it again:

Now can you see it?

You see, not only was Tom Christofferson not excommunicated because he "just identified as gay," he didn't even claim that that's what happened.

He said that "he asked to be excommunicated."

Now I hear you asking, "Why would he do that?"

Why, thank you for asking. I'll tell you.

He "asked to be excommunicated" because - are you ready for this? - name removal wasn't a thing in 1984.

Prior to the introduction of "name removal" sometime in the mid to late 1990's, a person wanting to voluntarily withdraw from Church membership had to "request excommunication," and a (usually brief and fairly pro-forma) Church Disciplinary Council would be convened.

So Tom Christofferson may have genuinely held the opinion that he could be excommunicated because he "just identified as gay," but his opinion is unsupported by his experience. He wasn't excommunicated because he "just identified as gay;" he was excommunicated because he asked to be.

Now, lest anyone should dishonestly describe my post here as "reinterpretation" or something, let me remind you, again, of what our one and only source of information - helpfully provided by Rockpond himself - actually said:

Q.E.D.

I thought that was obvious to everyone from the moment I posted it. 

[CV75]

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

No.  Sorry.  I still don’t agree with the interpretation of man and woman as symbols. 

You don't need to agree with the interpretation of man and woman as symbols, just as you don't need to worry about an interpretation of the law of opposition.

Looking strictly at the how the covenants are structured, you do agree that you cannot substitute water for bread  in D&C 20:77; nor some other element for water in D&C 20:73-74; nor servant for Father or Son, or any of them for each other, in D&C 84:33-39. On the same basis, you can see how husband cannot substitute for wife in the marriage covenant.

The covenants cannot be made without the physical components (which is why the dead without physical bodies must receive them by proxy from those on our side of the veil). The person making them needs to make these covenants in the flesh (for himself or as proxy), the media with which he makes them are also physical, and so the respective constructs of the covenants have their requisite specified physical elements.

Edited November 3, 2017 by CV75

[rockpond]

51 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You don't need to agree with the interpretation of man and woman as symbols, just as you don't need to worry about an interpretation of the law of opposition.

Looking strictly at the how the covenants are structured, you do agree that you cannot substitute water for bread  in D&C 20:77; nor some other element for water in D&C 20:73-74; nor servant for Father or Son, or any of them for each other, in D&C 84:33-39. On the same basis, you can see how husband cannot substitute for wife in the marriage covenant.

The covenants cannot be made without the physical components (which is why the dead without physical bodies must receive them by proxy from those on our side of the veil). The person making them needs to make these covenants in the flesh (for himself or as proxy), the media with which he makes them are also physical, and so the respective constructs of the covenants have their requisite specified physical elements.

Section 84 speaks to the priesthood oath and covenant, not specifically to marriage. So the application you are making is just your own interpretation/philosophy.  If it works for you, that’s great.  My beliefs differ. 

[CV75]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Section 84 speaks to the priesthood oath and covenant, not specifically to marriage. So the application you are making is just your own interpretation/philosophy.  If it works for you, that’s great.  My beliefs differ. 

None of the covenant constructs (baptism, sacrament, priesthood) speak specifically to marriage. They are separate covenants from marriage. The point is that these, and the marriage covenant (which is the apex of the endowment, which covenants apply also), are constructed a specific way wherein their components cannot substitute for each other (water and air or immersion and surfacing; bread and water; servants and God; husband and wife). All you have to do is read the scriptures for the public covenants and the ordinance scripts (which are as good as scripture) for the temple covenants.

[kiwi57]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

I firmly that I (and she) should follow His command and “go and sin no more”.

I'm glad to hear it.

Would you hold to that even if there was a popular, widespread social movement wherein "swinging" was described as a "sexual orientation" that should be recognised and accepted?