Scrutinizing general conference

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

The difference here is that God specifically created marriage.  He described it, gave its purpose, approval, even performed the first one as and example.  And in EVERY revelation or prophetic teaching marriage is the unification of the sexes.  God has never ever even hinted at the possibility that marriage could mean anything other than male plus female.

Marriage is defined by God.  He created it, defined it, and first performed it.  Anyone other definitions simply aren't marriage regardless of how man chooses to label them.  You might as well called water dry or fire cold.  It doesn't meet the definition of the one who designed it.

I think the argument is that cultures established their institutions and social constructs by attributing them to their understanding of God (or their best primitive guess of universal law and order) so they could maintain their social order and survival… but being human, they were just a bit off (at least according to some other, higher imagined order), and it is time to change. Time for a new dispensation or something; LOL

[CV75]

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I thought this was obvious from all our discussion so I remain a bit confused by your line of questions.  The adaptations would be for LGBT members.  The specifics are not my place to determine.  

Yes, the specifics are not our place to determine, but what do you see them being? For example, what do see as adaptations for LGBT members in an ideal paragraph 7, and how to do you tie the changes to what you accept as revealed principles?

[Rain]

 

44 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Why are you so reticent to speak with regard to the specifics of implementation of such proposed adaptations, but not at all reticent to say that such adaptations themselves should be implemented?  It would seem to me that, as a proponent of such a  position, it is incumbent upon you to offer such support for it.

Let me be clear here. I don't agree with rockpond that the proclamation can or should add LBGT families. If there was a revelation on it I would pray about it and accept whatever the Spirit says, but with my understanding of the gospel I don't think that is going to change. 

That said, rockpond is open to receiving new revelation about it including LBGT families. That may be why he is not specific. Since he doesn't lead the church then he can't get specifics for what revelation like that would look like. So he is open to whatever specifics there might be. I'm assuming that if the prophet announced that he had spent much time in pray and fasting, asking for clear revelation on bringing in LBGT and was told that no, it was not part of the eternal plan that rockpond would be open to searching his heart and praying again about it.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm sorry, but your ipse dixit regarding the ban doesn't constitute evidence. And lifting the ban did not fundamentally alter the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with respect to the priesthood in the same way that lifting the "ban" in the Church of Jesus Christ on gay marriage would fundamentally alter its doctrine.

Thanks,

-Ken

The belief that God did institute the ban and that he did not are back by equal evidence.  It’s the same level of ispe dixit.

While lifting the ban did not alter the doctrine (because it was done through revelation) subsequent disavowals did.  I anticipate a similar pattern regarding our doctrine on homosexuality.  I say “similar” because some changes to doctrine have already occurred. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Why are you so reticent to speak with regard to the specifics of implementation of such proposed adaptations, but not at all reticent to say that such adaptations themselves should be implemented?  It would seem to me that, as a proponent of such a  position, it is incumbent upon you to offer such support for it.

I’ve been very clear and forthright in my beliefs and positions.  My unwillingness to be pushed into positions which I do not hold is not equivalent to reticence to provide specifics. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Yes, the specifics are not our place to determine, but what do you see them being? For example, what do see as adaptations for LGBT members in an ideal paragraph 7, and how to do you tie the changes to what you accept as revealed principles?

See Rain’s answer.  

[JLHPROF]

22 minutes ago, Rain said:

If there was a revelation on it I would pray about it and accept whatever the Spirit says, but with my understanding of the gospel I don't think that is going to change. 

That said, rockpond is open to receiving new revelation about it including LBGT families.

 I'm assuming that if the prophet announced that he had spent much time in pray and fasting, asking for clear revelation on bringing in LBGT 

I think the two main social challenges against the Church  (SSM and giving women the priesthood) have a small chance of coming to pass in the future.

So if such revelation were announced would it be accepted by the general membership and sustained at time of announcement?  Or would members actually take it to the Lord as Rain suggests?  Would such a revelation be accepted by those who currently are positive it won't happen?

Personally I would reject it as false.

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think the two main social challenges against the Church  (SSM and giving women the priesthood) have a small chance of coming to pass in the future.

So if such revelation were announced would it be accepted by the general membership and sustained at time of announcement?  Or would members actually take it to the Lord as Rain suggests?  Would such a revelation be accepted by those who currently are positive it won't happen?

Personally I would reject it as false.

I’m just as positive the Church leaders won’t go so far off the rails to allow such a thing as I am that the things will never happen. 

[Kenngo1969]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The belief that God did institute the ban and that he did not are back by equal evidence.  It’s the same level of ispe dixit.

While lifting the ban did not alter the doctrine (because it was done through revelation) subsequent disavowals did.  I anticipate a similar pattern regarding our doctrine on homosexuality.  I say “similar” because some changes to doctrine have already occurred. 

I'm afraid I'll simply have to disagree (albeit agreeably ) with both your first and your second sentence, respectively.  I'll have a tough time finding a reference (though I'm reasonably certain the matter is treated in Greg Prince's David O.McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, I'm poor, am disinclined to buy the book anytime soon, and have too many other things in my reading queue), but I believe the report that President McKay asked about lifting the ban and was told (essentially, if not in so many words), "Not yet, and don't ask again."  I also believe President Kimball when he said that all he wanted was to do the Lord's will, whether it was His will that the ban remain in place or that it be lifted.

I know our respective positions on the matter are polar opposites, but, to me, if the ban had been the result of simple racism, I believe it's very likely that it would have been lifted ten or fifteen years earlier than it was, especially given the fact that President McKay did everything he could, absent a specific revelation, to lessen its scope (not applying it to non-African blacks, etc.)

[JLHPROF]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m just as positive the Church leaders won’t go so far off the rails to allow such a thing as I am that the things will never happen. 

And yet Scott you are one to whom I pose my questions.  You are so completely converted to the Church and such a staunch defender I cannot imagine you refusing to accept such a revelation were it ever announced.

I think you would both accept and defend such an announcement immediately due to your absolute sustaining of the brethren.

There were those who felt as you currently do about the end of polygamy and the priesthood ban. And they had to accept a revelation contrary to their beliefs.

Edited October 22, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Rain]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I think the two main social challenges against the Church  (SSM and giving women the priesthood) have a small chance of coming to pass in the future.

So if such revelation were announced would it be accepted by the general membership and sustained at time of announcement?  Or would members actually take it to the Lord as Rain suggests?  Would such a revelation be accepted by those who currently are positive it won't happen?

Personally I would reject it as false.

Are you saying you wouldn't take it to the Lord? You would just say the prophet had a false revelation? (This is not an acusation. I'm just trying to see if I understand you right).

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, Rain said:

Are you saying you wouldn't take it to the Lord? You would just say the prophet had a false revelation? (This is not an acusation. I'm just trying to see if I understand you right).

In these two particular cases, yes. In other revelations of course I would.

Because Joseph taught that a revelation that contradicts prior revelation  (as opposed to further light) can be dismissed as false AND that we are not to inquire for new revelation if there is already sufficient truth revealed to suit the case.  Then we are in 116 pages territory of permissive revelation.

I am satisfied the Lord has already revealed his truth on these issues.

Edited October 22, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Rain]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

In these two particular cases, yes. In other revelations of course I would.

Because Joseph taught that a revelation that contradicts prior revelation  (as opposed to further light) can be dismissed as false AND that we are not to inquire for new revelation if there is already sufficient truth revealed to suit the case.  Then we are in 116 pages territory of permissive revelation.

I am satisfied the Lord has already revealed his truth on these issues.

Thank you. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I think the two main social challenges against the Church  (SSM and giving women the priesthood) have a small chance of coming to pass in the future.

So if such revelation were announced would it be accepted by the general membership and sustained at time of announcement?  Or would members actually take it to the Lord as Rain suggests?  Would such a revelation be accepted by those who currently are positive it won't happen?

Personally I would reject it as false.

I wouldn’t expect such a revelation to happen until a majority of the church is ready to receive it.  I believe that’s why it took us over a century to be ready to reject a racist policy. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm afraid I'll simply have to disagree (albeit agreeably ) with both your first and your second sentence, respectively.  I'll have a tough time finding a reference (though I'm reasonably certain the matter is treated in Greg Prince's David O.McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, I'm poor, am disinclined to buy the book anytime soon, and have too many other things in my reading queue), but I believe the report that President McKay asked about lifting the ban and was told (essentially, if not in so many words), "Not yet, and don't ask again."  I also believe President Kimball when he said that all he wanted was to do the Lord's will, whether it was His will that the ban remain in place or that it be lifted.

I know our respective positions on the matter are polar opposites, but, to me, if the ban had been the result of simple racism, I believe it's very likely that it would have been lifted ten or fifteen years earlier than it was, especially given the fact that President McKay did everything he could, absent a specific revelation, to lessen its scope (not applying it to non-African blacks, etc.)

I don’t think we are as polar opposite as you might think. 

And I wouldn’t take something as complex as the priesthood and temple ban and pin it solely on “simple racism”. 

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I wouldn’t expect such a revelation to happen until a majority of the church is ready to receive it.  I believe that’s why it took us over a century to be ready to reject a racist policy. 

I would agree, although I think we have different definitions of the word ready.

Edited October 22, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Kenngo1969]

26 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don’t think we are as polar opposite as you might think. 

And I wouldn’t take something as complex as the priesthood and temple ban and pin it solely on “simple racism”. 

OK.

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

When the priesthood and temple ban was in effect, there was always a contingent among the brethren who assured us that the ban, however long it might last, was only temporary.  Even such things as the 1949 and 1969 statements of the First Presidency, respectively, regardless of how certain language contained therein might have made me or anyone else cringe, contained such caveats as "at the present time."  Can you point to anything analogous with respect to the stance of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on gay marriage?

Have all the sons of Abel had the opportunity to receive the Priesthood?  I was unaware of that.

[california boy]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The difference here is that God specifically created marriage.  He described it, gave its purpose, approval, even performed the first one as an example.  And in EVERY revelation or prophetic teaching marriage is the unification of the sexes.  God has never ever even hinted at the possibility that marriage could mean anything other than male plus female.

Marriage is defined by God.  He created it, defined it, and first performed it.  Any other definitions simply aren't marriage regardless of how man chooses to label them.  You might as well call water dry or fire cold.  It doesn't meet the definition of the one who designed it.

So without God, there would be no marriage throughout history?  That is your claim?  

[JLHPROF]

34 minutes ago, california boy said:

So without God, there would be no marriage throughout history?  That is your claim?  

Well it's not necessary for sex or raising children.  It's not even needed to be monogamous.  

Without a religious mandate what would cause such a delineated relationship to form?

Prior to SSM being legalized were there not committed monogamous SS families?  

So what differentiates that from marriage?  God made marriage. He defined it very clearly from the beginning.  Man can try to redefine it but it's no longer marriage.

[kiwi57]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

That said, rockpond is open to receiving new revelation about it including LBGT families. That may be why he is not specific. Since he doesn't lead the church then he can't get specifics for what revelation like that would look like.

I would go farther. I would say that since he doesn't lead the Church, the Lord is not going to reveal anything to him that is relevant to the entire Church until after He sees fit to reveal it to the Prophet.

4 hours ago, Rain said:

I'm assuming that if the prophet announced that he had spent much time in pray and fasting, asking for clear revelation on bringing in LBGT and was told that no, it was not part of the eternal plan that rockpond would be open to searching his heart and praying again about it.

I hope you are right; but Rockpond has made a number of statements that cause me to be less confident than you are.

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

The belief that God did institute the ban and that he did not are back by equal evidence.  It’s the same level of ispe dixit.

While lifting the ban did not alter the doctrine (because it was done through revelation) subsequent disavowals did.

What doctrines can you pinpoint from 1977 that are different today?

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I anticipate a similar pattern regarding our doctrine on homosexuality.  I say “similar” because some changes to doctrine have already occurred. 

What changes are those?

 

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I would go farther. I would say that since he doesn't lead the Church, the Lord is not going to reveal anything to him that is relevant to the entire Church until after He sees fit to reveal it to the Prophet.

I hope you are right; but Rockpond has made a number of statements that cause me to be less confident than you are.

Let me reassure you, I would absolutely pray and ponder over any new revelation received by our prophet.  You’ll note that I don’t question your faithfulness, I appreciate the same courtesy in return. 

[california boy]

26 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well it's not necessary for sex or raising children.  It's not even needed to be monogamous.  

Without a religious mandate what would cause such a delineated relationship to form?

Prior to SSM being legalized were there not committed monogamous SS families?  

So what differentiates that from marriage?  God made marriage. He defined it very clearly from the beginning.  Man can try to redefine it but it's no longer marriage.

I am trying to understand your position.  Do you think the Israelites were the only ones that married for example?

[kiwi57]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Let me reassure you, I would absolutely pray and ponder over any new revelation received by our prophet.  You’ll note that I don’t question your faithfulness, I appreciate the same courtesy in return. 

I don't question your faithfulness. I question whether you have any standing to claim that God has revealed something to you which He has not revealed to the Prophet.