rockpond Posted October 27, 2017 Posted October 27, 2017 7 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Actually it's the other way around. Elder Rector was a Seventy, President Clark was an apostle and a counselor in the First Presidency. Ugh... No, I totally botched their callings. I should have looked first rather than trusting my memory. You are correct that Rector was a Seventy. But so was Clarke (J. Richard). He also served in the presiding bishopric -- which was his calling at the time of the conference address I quoted.
ksfisher Posted October 27, 2017 Posted October 27, 2017 11 minutes ago, rockpond said: Ugh... No, I totally botched their callings. I should have looked first rather than trusting my memory. You are correct that Rector was a Seventy. But so was Clarke (J. Richard). He also served in the presiding bishopric -- which was his calling at the time of the conference address I quoted. Well and I didn't read your quotes carefully enough. I saw the J and the R and the Clarke and my mind filled in J Reuben Clark.
ALarson Posted October 27, 2017 Posted October 27, 2017 1 hour ago, CV75 said: Of course I can have it both ways and I explained how. Well, you can make that claim but your reasoning only supports the probability that there will be more change regarding policies and teachings from our leaders on this topic. 1
CV75 Posted October 27, 2017 Posted October 27, 2017 (edited) 43 minutes ago, rockpond said: There is a difference between drawing an analogy or metaphor using a movie or literary work and stating a conclusion that homosexuality is an addiction rooted in an unhappy family life. How are you distinguishing between the words they speak that are doctrine and the words where they are just sharing secular knowledge with us? To me, secular expression can be made through music, literature and the other arts, and prophets are free to use them in their talks to illustrate a doctrinal point. When secular knowledge is expressed through the sciences and academics, they are free to use those conclusions for the same purpose. The doctrinal points (and I'm not about to scour through old talks) would be themes such as sex outside of marriage is sin that can be overcome through faith in Christ; His grace will help us do that after all we can do; etc. I think if you read the talks with that lens you will see it. Jesus spoke about the weather to teach the doctrine of the signs, and animal husbandry to teach the doctrine of His love. If I know enough about a secular topic, I can pick it out right away. I think that is why we are encouraged to study of "things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms..." I'm not sure how we can access any more than what has been availed, and what is not controversial is a subset of that. D&C 88:78 frames this quest for knowledge in terms of that which is "expedient for you to understand." I think the more expedient it is, the more the Lord will facilitate the advancement of secular knowledge, otherwise He is fine that we go at out own pace and use it to promote His doctrine. Edited October 27, 2017 by CV75 2
CV75 Posted October 27, 2017 Posted October 27, 2017 10 minutes ago, ALarson said: Well, you can make that claim but your reasoning only supports the probability that there will be more change regarding policies and teachings from our leaders on this topic. Maybe according to your reasoning! But "supports the probability" makes no sense as long as you can't quantify it. And "the probability" -- whatever it may be calculated to be -- is supported no matter what either of us reason. I wasn't making any calculations and it doesn't appear you can.
rockpond Posted October 27, 2017 Posted October 27, 2017 14 minutes ago, CV75 said: To me, secular expression can be made through music, literature and the other arts, and prophets are free to use them in their talks to illustrate a doctrinal point. When secular knowledge is expressed through the sciences and academics, they are free to use those conclusions for the same purpose. The doctrinal points (and I'm not about to scour through old talks) would be themes such as sex outside of marriage is sin that can be overcome through faith in Christ; His grace will help us do that after all we can do; etc. I think if you read the talks with that lens you will see it. Sounds good... and perhaps at some point in the future we'll look back and realize that our teachings that limited the definition of marriage were just secular knowledge. 14 minutes ago, CV75 said: I think the more expedient it is, the more the Lord will facilitate the advancement of secular knowledge, otherwise He is fine that we go at out own pace and use it to promote His doctrine. Yes, I think it was expedient that we ditch some of the teachings we had regarding homosexuality and fortunately, the leaders of the church were able to eventually accept the secular knowledge and make it a part of their teachings.
mfbukowski Posted October 27, 2017 Posted October 27, 2017 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: What's this? Honestly I don't get it. I guess I came in the middle of something
JLHPROF Posted October 27, 2017 Posted October 27, 2017 1 minute ago, mfbukowski said: What's this? Honestly I don't get it. I guess I came in the middle of something You had said "We don't even have a clear definition of doctrine." It's been said that trying to identify Mormon doctrine is like trying to nail jello to a wall.
mfbukowski Posted October 27, 2017 Posted October 27, 2017 7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: You had said "We don't even have a clear definition of doctrine." It's been said that trying to identify Mormon doctrine is like trying to nail jello to a wall. LOL oh man- that red jello looked like an execution scene or something to me- holy cow! Anyway- it should have clearly been GREEN jello in this context anyway! 3
CV75 Posted October 27, 2017 Posted October 27, 2017 5 minutes ago, rockpond said: Sounds good... and perhaps at some point in the future we'll look back and realize that our teachings that limited the definition of marriage were just secular knowledge. Yes, I think it was expedient that we ditch some of the teachings we had regarding homosexuality and fortunately, the leaders of the church were able to eventually accept the secular knowledge and make it a part of their teachings. Let's compare the trajectory that the doctrine of marriage has taken in the canon with with the trajectory that secular knowledge has taken and try to make a more educated guess on that one. You're mischaracterizing the prophets and what I said about them. I explained how the current secular knowledge is but a tool they use to support them in teaching the doctrine and ministering to the saints. Do you really not see the difference?
mfbukowski Posted October 27, 2017 Posted October 27, 2017 (edited) 24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: You had said "We don't even have a clear definition of doctrine." It's been said that trying to identify Mormon doctrine is like trying to nail jello to a wall. Now THIS is a perfect example of metaphors - and language in general working only in a context!! It's like an inkblot test. Edited October 27, 2017 by mfbukowski 1
rockpond Posted October 27, 2017 Posted October 27, 2017 3 minutes ago, CV75 said: Let's compare the trajectory that the doctrine of marriage has taken in the canon with with the trajectory that secular knowledge has taken and try to make a more educated guess on that one. You're mischaracterizing the prophets and what I said about them. I explained how the current secular knowledge is but a tool they use to support them in teaching the doctrine and ministering to the saints. Do you really not see the difference? The trajectory of the doctrine of marriage? Well, let's see, we're just 72 years removed from our last polygamous prophet. And we're less than four decades removed from when one's race could prevent them from being sealed. Yeah - it's not hard for me to see that trajectory leading to other changes as well. I was just doing my best to apply your logic to the subject of the thread. 1
CV75 Posted October 27, 2017 Posted October 27, 2017 1 minute ago, rockpond said: The trajectory of the doctrine of marriage? Well, let's see, we're just 72 years removed from our last polygamous prophet. And we're less than four decades removed from when one's race could prevent them from being sealed. Yeah - it's not hard for me to see that trajectory leading to other changes as well. I was just doing my best to apply your logic to the subject of the thread. I didn't realize you didn't take marriage between a man and a woman to be the consistent theme in the canon. The matters you bring up here get back to the differences between practice, policy, principle and doctrine which we discussed pages and pages ago. I'll refer you back to those snippets. Enjoy!
rockpond Posted October 27, 2017 Posted October 27, 2017 4 minutes ago, CV75 said: I didn't realize you didn't take marriage between a man and a woman to be the consistent theme in the canon. The matters you bring up here get back to the differences between practice, policy, principle and doctrine which we discussed pages and pages ago. I'll refer you back to those snippets. Enjoy! I read that, found it interesting, but not sure what your point it. There are a number of "themes" in our canon that we don't consider to be consistent with truth and God's plan.
ALarson Posted October 27, 2017 Posted October 27, 2017 (edited) 48 minutes ago, CV75 said: I wasn't making any calculations and it doesn't appear you can. Sure I can and I do. I predict change in the future regarding the teachings on this topic.... Edited October 27, 2017 by ALarson 1
kiwi57 Posted October 27, 2017 Posted October 27, 2017 2 hours ago, rockpond said: There is a difference between drawing an analogy or metaphor using a movie or literary work and stating a conclusion that homosexuality is an addiction rooted in an unhappy family life. How are you distinguishing between the words they speak that are doctrine and the words where they are just sharing secular knowledge with us? Those of us who don't have an agenda around this topic have no such difficulty as you seem to experience. Whether homosexuality comes from an unhappy family life or not - and I have seen informed arguments to the effect that that does happen, at least in some cases - the fact remains that homosexual behaviour is morally wrong and self-destructive. That is the doctrinal point, and it is clearly spelled out in the Bible. This is not at all controversial in the Church. And the repeated insistence by self-described homosexuals to the effect that they can't imagine giving it up sounds an awful lot like an addiction to me. You asked these questions. I hope you like the answers. 1
rockpond Posted October 27, 2017 Posted October 27, 2017 9 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: Those of us who don't have an agenda around this topic have no such difficulty as you seem to experience. My agenda: seeking truth and God's will. And please don't kid yourself about not having an agenda - I saw how you applied our interpretation to the quotes I provided. And, I noted your unwillingness to read the links I pointed you to. 10 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: Whether homosexuality comes from an unhappy family life or not - and I have seen informed arguments to the effect that that does happen, at least in some cases - the fact remains that homosexual behaviour is morally wrong and self-destructive. That is the doctrinal point, and it is clearly spelled out in the Bible. Lookout... you're losing credibility. 11 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: This is not at all controversial in the Church. This statement was meant as a joke, right? 11 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: And the repeated insistence by self-described homosexuals to the effect that they can't imagine giving it up sounds an awful lot like an addiction to me. Sounds more like an eternal characteristic to me (see the Proclamation) 12 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: You asked these questions. I hope you like the answers. You have dodged most of the questions I've asked you. 1
kiwi57 Posted October 27, 2017 Posted October 27, 2017 1 hour ago, rockpond said: The trajectory of the doctrine of marriage? Well, let's see, we're just 72 years removed from our last polygamous prophet. So the abandonment of polygamy meant that instead of marriage being between a man and a woman (poly+gamy = many marriages) it was now between a man and a woman. How does that "trajectory" get us closer to same sex "marriage?" 1 hour ago, rockpond said: And we're less than four decades removed from when one's race could prevent them from being sealed. Which had nothing to do with the doctrine of marriage, and everything to do with a Priesthood restriction that everyone expected to be lifted someday. 1 hour ago, rockpond said: Yeah - it's not hard for me to see that trajectory leading to other changes as well. There is no doctrinally sound basis for imagining same sex "marriage" happening in the Church of Jesus Christ.
kiwi57 Posted October 27, 2017 Posted October 27, 2017 22 minutes ago, rockpond said: My agenda: seeking truth and God's will. Then when are you going to start accepting it? God's will is that marriage is between a man and a woman. 22 minutes ago, rockpond said: And please don't kid yourself about not having an agenda - I saw how you applied our interpretation to the quotes I provided. My interpretation is valid. 22 minutes ago, rockpond said: And, I noted your unwillingness to read the links I pointed you to. I've read the links. Long, tedious and propagandistic though they are. 22 minutes ago, rockpond said: Lookout... you're losing credibility. I'm not at all worried about your "warnings." For people who read and understand the Bible, it's really quite straightforward. 22 minutes ago, rockpond said: This statement was meant as a joke, right? Not in the slightest. There is no controversy in the Church. Of course there have always been under-informed individuals, less-active members and "jack Mormons" with various opinions about various subjects. But there is no controversy in the Church. And there are certainly no faithful Latter-day Saints anywhere trying to create such controversy. 22 minutes ago, rockpond said: Sounds more like an eternal characteristic to me (see the Proclamation) Wrong. But thanks for playing. The Proclamation nowhere says or implies that sexual deviancy is an eternal characteristic. Please stop trying to pervert its meaning. 22 minutes ago, rockpond said: You have dodged most of the questions I've asked you. I have "dodged" nothing. I have addressed the questions I see as relevant or pertinent. Are you perhaps labouring under the misapprehension that you have the authority to interrogate me about something or other? Just so you know, I'm not interested in being proselyted to some apostate pseudo-doctrine.
kiwi57 Posted October 27, 2017 Posted October 27, 2017 1 hour ago, ALarson said: Sure I can and I do. I predict change in the future regarding the teachings on this topic.... And so do I. Just not the changes that you and the other "allies" are looking for.
rockpond Posted October 27, 2017 Posted October 27, 2017 5 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: Not in the slightest. There is no controversy in the Church. Of course there have always been under-informed individuals, less-active members and "jack Mormons" with various opinions about various subjects. But there is no controversy in the Church. If you think that I am "under-informed, less-active, or a jack-Mormon you are wrong on all accounts. Quite wrong. I'll let the rest of your responses stand because there really isn't anything worth responding to there.
kiwi57 Posted October 27, 2017 Posted October 27, 2017 2 hours ago, rockpond said: Sounds good... and perhaps at some point in the future we'll look back and realize that our teachings that limited the definition of marriage were just secular knowledge. Nope. They are revealed truth. And it appears to be shaping up as the great litmus test for our time. Those who are faithful to the Gospel and obedient to God will - it should go without saying - be faithful to this principle. While the others? 2 Timothy 4: 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. Like the fable of "same sex marriage," for instance. 2 hours ago, rockpond said: Yes, I think it was expedient that we ditch some of the teachings we had regarding homosexuality and fortunately, the leaders of the church were able to eventually accept the secular knowledge and make it a part of their teachings. They have, and will continue (like Paul in the Areopagus) to use secular knowledge to illustrate and amplify their teachings. But they won't let secular knowledge, which has changed and will continue to change, to determine the doctrines they teach. Because the doctrines are not secular knowledge. And secular knowledge is not doctrine.
kiwi57 Posted October 27, 2017 Posted October 27, 2017 5 hours ago, rockpond said: And this point (being made by @HappyJackWagon, @ALarson, and @Jeanne) can be applied to the topic of the thread regarding Oaks' address... Will we someday just explain away parts of the Proclamation as "secular knowledge in ministering according to doctrine" as @CV75 explains away the Kimball/Peterson quotes? No. But thanks for asking. Joint statements of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have rather significantly greater authority than pamphlets. And the Proclamation is a statement of doctrine, outright, not just a letter setting out guidelines about how to deal with repentant homosexuals.
kiwi57 Posted October 27, 2017 Posted October 27, 2017 9 minutes ago, rockpond said: If you think that I am "under-informed, less-active, or a jack-Mormon you are wrong on all accounts. Quite wrong. You say so. 9 minutes ago, rockpond said: I'll let the rest of your responses stand because there really isn't anything worth responding to there. That's quite all right. And I promise that I won't be so uncharitable as to accuse you of having "dodged most of the questions," or anything like that.
kiwi57 Posted October 27, 2017 Posted October 27, 2017 23 hours ago, rockpond said: Nope. I never claimed it was a therapeutic stategy. Quite the opposite. Really? Then what does this mean? "3. That homosexuals should get married as a way to correct their attractions (Kimball/Peterson). " What do the highlighted words mean, Rockpond?
Recommended Posts