HappyJackWagon Posted September 24, 2018 Posted September 24, 2018 1 hour ago, YJacket said: To the bold, of course; dictates of our own conscience, everyone does it. Just as much as it is your opinion that homosexuality is not sin. We all like to justify our own sins in our own minds using whatever we can-we justify it to ourselves and we use reinterpretations of things to justify it to others. So that others won't tell us we are living in sin. It is easier to know how true and straight we are by the justifications we make regarding our behavior to others. Directly to your questions, if we only take the exact words of Christ spoken when He was alive then the set of doctrine would be very, very small-maybe a total of 25 pages. So to ask how many times did Christ preach against homosexuality is a red-herring. If you only take for doctrine, only those things directly spoken by him in a physical presence than that is fine-but make sure you discard the 99% of the Book of Mormon, DC, Book of Abraham, and the Old Testament and 75% of the New Testament. More to your underlying point, it is what many, many inside the Church and in Christian religion in general have done. In fact, they would throw away everything except the refrain to "love one another" and that all we need is "love". And to truly love (in their definition) just means to accept everyone as they are-which really means that whatever you do doesn't matter as long as whoever is involved in whatever act is complacent with the act. It is the abolition of sin and a nihilistic worldview of utter meaningless. Sadly, many Christian don't even realize that this worldview would obliterate the need for a Savior. If all that matters is to just accept and love, then there is no sin and with no sin no need for a Savior and thus Christ was pointless. How many times did Christ preach against it? He certainly preached against lusts of the heart. Other prophets and apostles preached directly against it as recorded in scriptures. It has only been in the last 20-30 years (a very small bit of time) where with no revelation, no change to scripture, leaders in the Church have begun to preach definitely. When taking the full breadth of the revealed Word of God, it is crystal clear it is 100% against God's commandments and laws. With divorce, I absolutely oppose divorce except for reasons stated in the scripture. We can see the fruits of divorce upon society, fatherless homes, destroyed youth, divorce is a blight and a scourge. Those who divorce, except for reasons stated in the scriptures, will one day stand before God accountable for their sin and when the full breadth of the evil outcomes are brought before them, they will weep and they will wail. I do feel sad for them . . . More specifically, I believe that SS attraction is not a sin. The official position of the church agrees with me. I'm not justifying my own sins, since that's not my particular sin. I have different sins. So your argument about how I'm justifying this just doesn't hold up. If we take the exact words of Christ, recorded as he spoke them we would literally have NADA. But there are very clear teachings about divorce. Can you provide at least 4 very clear teachings about hm0sxuality from the PoGP, D&C, BoM? No. Can you provide them from the bible? Maybe, if you stretch.
smac97 Posted September 24, 2018 Posted September 24, 2018 1 hour ago, YJacket said: Quote "Cafeteria" Mormon has been used as a derisive term but I don't think it should be. I just think it's accurate. I pick and choose based, among other things, which source of information I privilege. You do the same. Because the truth is there are contradictions in the scriptures, just as there are contradictions amongst church leaders. Sometimes leaders contradict scriptures, and sometimes leaders say THEY are scripture; t a Living prophet is more vital than a dead prophet and the standard works. So we choose which we feel is more important, following canonized scripture, or following the living prophet. In your case, you seem to be privileging canonized scripture, which is understandable, but it is still a choice. In your opinion it may be a very well thought out, well-studied opinion, but it's still an opinion. To the bold, of course; dictates of our own conscience, everyone does it. Just as much as it is your opinion that homosexuality is not sin. Not sure what you mean by "homosexuality." That's like saying "heterosexuality is not a sin." Well, it can be. It largely depends upon one's conduct. 1 hour ago, YJacket said: We all like to justify our own sins in our own minds using whatever we can-we justify it to ourselves and we use reinterpretations of things to justify it to others. So that others won't tell us we are living in sin. It is easier to know how true and straight we are by the justifications we make regarding our behavior to others. I'm with HJW on this one. Homosexual behavior has never been one of "my own sins," so I'm not attempting to justify them. 1 hour ago, YJacket said: Directly to your questions, if we only take the exact words of Christ spoken when He was alive then the set of doctrine would be very, very small-maybe a total of 25 pages. So to ask how many times did Christ preach against homosexuality is a red-herring. If you only take for doctrine, only those things directly spoken by him in a physical presence than that is fine-but make sure you discard the 99% of the Book of Mormon, DC, Book of Abraham, and the Old Testament and 75% of the New Testament. I agree. 1 hour ago, YJacket said: More to your underlying point, it is what many, many inside the Church and in Christian religion in general have done. In fact, they would throw away everything except the refrain to "love one another" and that all we need is "love". The Church and its leaders have not done this. 1 hour ago, YJacket said: And to truly love (in their definition) just means to accept everyone as they are-which really means that whatever you do doesn't matter as long as whoever is involved in whatever act is complacent with the act. The Church and its leaders haven't done this, either. To the contrary, the Church presently catches all sorts of flak for teaching the Law of Chastity in a way very different from "whatever you do doesn't matter." 1 hour ago, YJacket said: It is the abolition of sin and a nihilistic worldview of utter meaningless. Sadly, many Christian don't even realize that this worldview would obliterate the need for a Savior. If all that matters is to just accept and love, then there is no sin and with no sin no need for a Savior and thus Christ was pointless. I agree. Thanks, -Smac
YJacket Posted September 24, 2018 Posted September 24, 2018 46 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: More specifically, I believe that SS attraction is not a sin. The official position of the church agrees with me. I'm not justifying my own sins, since that's not my particular sin. I have different sins. So your argument about how I'm justifying this just doesn't hold up. If we take the exact words of Christ, recorded as he spoke them we would literally have NADA. But there are very clear teachings about divorce. Can you provide at least 4 very clear teachings about hm0sxuality from the PoGP, D&C, BoM? No. Can you provide them from the bible? Maybe, if you stretch. And the official church position is only such since about 1994, with no new revelation or addition of scripture, prior to that SSA was clearly recognized as a sin. Yes from the Bible absolutely, so what if DC, BoM, PoGP are silent on it. PoGP is silent on many things, so is DC. To disregard the OT and NT on this b/c it isn't specifically mentioned in the restored scripture is a little extreme. I'll give you 5 scriptures, it's not even a stretch-it's plan as day. Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet Corinthians 1:6 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God Matthew 19 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Sidenote, I do find it strange you are hung up on divorce yet ignore Christ's commandment that man shall cleave to his wife-not his other man, two homosexuals cannot be one flesh-it is physically impossible) Leviticus 18:22 22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. 23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Leviticus 20: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 1
YJacket Posted September 24, 2018 Posted September 24, 2018 38 minutes ago, smac97 said: Hence the wisdom to a tripartite approach to such things. For me, the formula goes like this: (D) Guidance from God = (A) Scriptures + (B) Ongoing Prophetic Counsel + (C) Personal Revelation and Assessment. If one of these three is "out of tune" with the others, my first effort will be to re-evaluate (C), as that is probably the most likely to be in error. My second effort would be to review a specific instance of (B) in the context of other instances of (B) to see if the specific instance is perhaps a bit off. Thy third effort would be to re-evaluate my understanding of (A). This often involves examination of historical/cultural context, translation issues, the scope and sphere of "likening" the scriptures to me, and so on. I am not sure I understand your apparent complaint about delays between instances of canonization. In my view, "revelation" seems to be a fairly consistent topic in General Conference. I guess some members may differentiate between, on the one hand, "revelation" that involves actual words from God (such as D&C 137:7-10) and/or revelations that reveal something new or previously unknown (such as portions of D&C 138) and, on the other hand, "revelation" that only alludes to a revelatory experience, and/or does not include specifically-dictated-by-God-Himselve verbiage (OD-2). Some members may also differentiate between canonized and non-canonized revelation. That distinction is quite a bit easier to understand, and I think the sort of thing that Pres. Nelson is hoping to accommodate. Some members may also differentiate between "revelation" that pertains to ethereal "things of the spirit" (D&C 137 and D&C 138) as opposed to "revelation" that appears to administrative/procedural issues (the 2015 policy changes). Personally, I would like to see a canonized revelation on the subject of same-sex attraction and same-sex marriage. I think there are some members of the Church who have bought into the notion that there really isn't a scriptural basis for condemning homosexual conduct as sin, or that "same-sex marriage" can be a holy thing allowed or endorsed by God. A revelation on the subject would be painful for many Saints, and would probably cause some people to leave the Church. But it would also put an end to speculation, the scripture-wresting, and so on. Nevertheless, I am confident that the Brethren are aware of differing opinions in the Church on these issues, that they are discussing these issues with each other, that they are seeking divine guidance on these issues, and that if a revelation is not forthcoming, it will not be because the Brethren have refused to make these issues objects of discussion, study, pondering, fasting, praying, and so on. The Brethren are not all grouped together in some sort of echo chamber in Salt Lake. They are out and about constantly. They are in direct and constant communication with each other, with members of the quorums of seventies, who are in direct and constant communication with stake presidents, mission presidents and district presidents, who are in direct and constant communication with bishops and branch presidents, who are in direct and constant communication with members of their wards/branches. The Brethren also function in quorums. We have statements indicating unanimity amongst the Brethren as to the 2015 policy changes, and also that the unanimity arose from confirming revelation to the members of the Twelve. The function of quorums in the Church is important. Quorums operate as a bulwark against the risk of one individual leader characterizing his personal opinion as a revealed truth and then presenting it to the entirety of the Church. Decisions arising from quorums, particularly from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, can therefore provide quite a bit of comfort to the membership of the church. I'm not saying the decisions of these quorums are utterly without flaw or defect, but in terms of "broad strokes" the Brethren are getting things right, and are likely to continue to get things substantially right while they function in quorums. Thanks, -Smac I agree with much of what you say. I wouldn't say I have so much of a complaint about the delay, simply just a recognition that there exists different levels of revelation which are binding upon members of the Church. I hope we can agree that as members of the Church the first source and the ultimate source that should be common among all individuals who profess to be Saints is Scripture. That is the ultimate body of work upon which the Church is founded; we are different than all other Christian religions b/c we claim new Scripture. Scripture is the measuring stick by which we can truly know if something is of God or not. The acceptance of Scripture through a formal canonization process where members can vote to sustain or not provide a check upon any religion or man who attempts to gain control of others. At some point for any canonized scripture the entire body of the Saints voted and sustained such scripture-we do not do so for the words spoken at GC. As such, their belief in those words are not binding to be a member in good standing. Now, certainly if God through His Spirit confirms the words of the Prophets and Apostles then yes they become binding upon us individually. Yes quorums are important but so is the general body of the Saints. This goes back to "common consent", public acknowledgement. One thing people don't realize today is how much the history of the Church and in US was conducted in conventions using mechanisms similar to Robert's Rules of Order-the current process would probably bewilder much of our ancestors. I would also welcome a canonized revelation on some issues-I don't think we really need one if people simply read their scriptures, but it would be nice to have some stakes in the ground so to speak about it . . .
YJacket Posted September 24, 2018 Posted September 24, 2018 33 minutes ago, smac97 said: Not sure what you mean by "homosexuality." That's like saying "heterosexuality is not a sin." Well, it can be. It largely depends upon one's conduct. I'm with HJW on this one. Homosexual behavior has never been one of "my own sins," so I'm not attempting to justify them. I agree. The Church and its leaders have not done this. The Church and its leaders haven't done this, either. To the contrary, the Church presently catches all sorts of flak for teaching the Law of Chastity in a way very different from "whatever you do doesn't matter." I agree. Thanks, -Smac Homosexuality: sexual (not non-sexual) thoughts, feelings, actions towards a member of the same-sex. Pretty simple. It may not be one of your own sins, but being blinded by those who persuade others to accept their sin as non-sin is pretty common. To the bold, I never said that the Church and its leaders (i.e. general) have done this. I said many, many inside the Church. I do believe some leaders have done this, but it is (thankfully!) a very, very small percentage.
HappyJackWagon Posted September 24, 2018 Posted September 24, 2018 10 minutes ago, YJacket said: And the official church position is only such since about 1994, with no new revelation or addition of scripture, prior to that SSA was clearly recognized as a sin. Yes from the Bible absolutely, so what if DC, BoM, PoGP are silent on it. PoGP is silent on many things, so is DC. To disregard the OT and NT on this b/c it isn't specifically mentioned in the restored scripture is a little extreme. I'll give you 5 scriptures, it's not even a stretch-it's plan as day. Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet Corinthians 1:6 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God Matthew 19 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Sidenote, I do find it strange you are hung up on divorce yet ignore Christ's commandment that man shall cleave to his wife-not his other man, two homosexuals cannot be one flesh-it is physically impossible) Leviticus 18:22 22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. 23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Leviticus 20: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. I won't get into how that isn't "impossible" as I don't want this thread to get shut down. But I'll mention just a couple of things. 1- I pointed out specifically that the PoGP, D&C, BoM don't address hmosxuality because you specifically raised them as canonized scripture that you live by and cited as authoritative in regard to hmosxuality. 2- I only mention divorce to illustrate that you, just like everyone else, picks and chooses which parts of canonized scripture you will follow. You are a cafeteria Mormon, just like me 2
smac97 Posted September 24, 2018 Posted September 24, 2018 2 minutes ago, YJacket said: Quote Not sure what you mean by "homosexuality." That's like saying "heterosexuality is not a sin." Well, it can be. It largely depends upon one's conduct. I'm with HJW on this one. Homosexual behavior has never been one of "my own sins," so I'm not attempting to justify them. I agree. The Church and its leaders have not done this. The Church and its leaders haven't done this, either. To the contrary, the Church presently catches all sorts of flak for teaching the Law of Chastity in a way very different from "whatever you do doesn't matter." I agree. Thanks, -Smac Homosexuality: sexual (not non-sexual) thoughts, feelings, actions towards a member of the same-sex. Pretty simple. Actually, not that simple. "Homosexuality" conflates some very different things into one whole. Surely there is a difference between an unbidden "thought" or "feeling" and acting on such a thought or feeling. 2 minutes ago, YJacket said: It may not be one of your own sins, but being blinded by those who persuade others to accept their sin as non-sin is pretty common. I don't think I'm blinded. 2 minutes ago, YJacket said: To the bold, I never said that the Church and its leaders (i.e. general) have done this. I said many, many inside the Church. I do believe some leaders have done this, but it is (thankfully!) a very, very small percentage. The Church's position differentiates what you conflate. And it's a meaningful difference. Thanks, -Smac 1
YJacket Posted September 24, 2018 Posted September 24, 2018 5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I won't get into how that isn't "impossible" as I don't want this thread to get shut down. But I'll mention just a couple of things. 1- I pointed out specifically that the PoGP, D&C, BoM don't address hmosxuality because you specifically raised them as canonized scripture that you live by and cited as authoritative in regard to hmosxuality. 2- I only mention divorce to illustrate that you, just like everyone else, picks and chooses which parts of canonized scripture you will follow. You are a cafeteria Mormon, just like me 1: I really don't follow, I am confused. I do my best to follow the full canon of scripture, simply because one book or one chapter or one compendium of scripture fails to mention the Jesus is the Christ (for chapter and books for example), does not mean I throw out that Jesus is the Christ. Yes they are canon, and the OT and NT are canon also and they clearly address homosexuality. 2: Again, I don't follow, you mention divorce, but I've told you I believe in the biblical definition of when it is acceptable to divorce. Like I said I'm confused, for both 1&2 you seem to be claiming that I have beliefs in things that I've never said nor believe.
kllindley Posted September 24, 2018 Posted September 24, 2018 Just now, smac97 said: Actually, not that simple. "Homosexuality" conflates some very different things into one whole. Surely there is a difference between an unbidden "thought" or "feeling" and acting on such a thought or feeling. I don't think I'm blinded. The Church's position differentiates what you conflate. And it's a meaningful difference. Thanks, -Smac What I find interesting, is that both the train of thought represented by @YJacket and that espoused by more liberal, progressive opinions about homosexuality are guilty of rejecting the differentiation you describe. I think sometimes the conflation is unconscious, but in both of these instances it seems very intentional. 2
smac97 Posted September 24, 2018 Posted September 24, 2018 11 minutes ago, YJacket said: I agree with much of what you say. I wouldn't say I have so much of a complaint about the delay, simply just a recognition that there exists different levels of revelation which are binding upon members of the Church. I suppose. 11 minutes ago, YJacket said: I hope we can agree that as members of the Church the first source and the ultimate source that should be common among all individuals who profess to be Saints is Scripture. Actually, I think the "ultimate source" is the Spirit. It is by the Spirit that we meaningfully and correctly interpret and apply scripture. It is by the Spirit that we listen and accept, or not, the counsel of living prophets and apostles. It is by the Spirit that we "may know the truth of all things" (Moroni 10:5). 11 minutes ago, YJacket said: That is the ultimate body of work upon which the Church is founded; Actually, it is upon revelation from the Spirit that the Church is built. See Matthew 16:18 ("And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church..."), History of the Church, 5:258 ("Jesus in His teachings says, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ [Matthew 16:18.] What rock? Revelation."). In another sense (still revelatory, though) it is apostles which are the "foundation" of the Church, "Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone" (Eph. 2:20). Scriptures are a record of revelation to prophets and apostles. They are very important, see here: Quote The Standard Works are scripture. They are binding upon us. They are the mind and will and voice of the Lord. He never has, he does not now, and he never will reveal anything which is contrary to what is in them. No person, speaking by the spirit of inspiration, will ever teach doctrine that is out of harmony with the truths God has already revealed. These words of President Joseph Fielding Smith should guide all of us in our gospel study: “It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. “You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. “Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 3:203–4; also cited in Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966], p. 609.) That sound good to me. 11 minutes ago, YJacket said: we are different than all other Christian religions b/c we claim new Scripture. Scripture is the measuring stick by which we can truly know if something is of God or not. The acceptance of Scripture through a formal canonization process where members can vote to sustain or not provide a check upon any religion or man who attempts to gain control of others. At some point for any canonized scripture the entire body of the Saints voted and sustained such scripture-we do not do so for the words spoken at GC. And yet a canonized scripture appears to allow for non-canonized "scripture." Quote 1 My servant, Orson Hyde, was called by his ordination to proclaim the everlasting gospel, by the Spirit of the living God, from people to people, and from land to land, in the congregations of the wicked, in their synagogues, reasoning with and expounding all scriptures unto them. 2 And, behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth— 3 And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. 4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation. (D&C 68:1-4) Thus the scriptures are not the sum total of revelation or scripture given to us. 11 minutes ago, YJacket said: As such, their belief in those words are not binding to be a member in good standing. Surely we are obligated/bound to follow prophetic counsel to the extent it is in accordance with the scriptures. 11 minutes ago, YJacket said: Now, certainly if God through His Spirit confirms the words of the Prophets and Apostles then yes they become binding upon us individually. Ah. Looks like we agree on that point. 11 minutes ago, YJacket said: Yes quorums are important but so is the general body of the Saints. This goes back to "common consent", public acknowledgement. One thing people don't realize today is how much the history of the Church and in US was conducted in conventions using mechanisms similar to Robert's Rules of Order-the current process would probably bewilder much of our ancestors. As would the vista of millions of members of the Church spread all over the world, such that the "conventions" used in the early days of the Church are no longer practical. 11 minutes ago, YJacket said: I would also welcome a canonized revelation on some issues-I don't think we really need one if people simply read their scriptures, but it would be nice to have some stakes in the ground so to speak about it . . . I think a revelation that clearly lays out the Law of Chastity as pertaining to the same-sex attraction and same-sex marriage would be helpful (though probably divisive). Thanks, -Smac
YJacket Posted September 24, 2018 Posted September 24, 2018 5 minutes ago, smac97 said: Actually, not that simple. "Homosexuality" conflates some very different things into one whole. Surely there is a difference between an unbidden "thought" or "feeling" and acting on such a thought or feeling. I don't think I'm blinded. The Church's position differentiates what you conflate. And it's a meaningful difference. Thanks, -Smac Smac, I will let Christ and God be the judge of being blinded . . . however, I believe many members of the Church are. They are deeply confused and blinded. We never think we are blinded when we are blinded. The nature of human beings doesn't change, that nature has been the same from the beginning of time. There is no "new" problem that has only occurred in the last 50 years with regards to homosexuality. However, because we are modern, we fancy ourselves as more enlightened, we fancy that we have so much more technology and so much more science that we understand the nature of human beings much better . . .it is a fallacy and a belief in a false God, worshiping at the alter of man. To the bold . . .and thus we see how the Devil gets his hooks into the membership and thus how members become blinded. "Sow a thought and you reap an action; sow an act and you reap a habit; sow a habit and you reap a character; sow a character and you reap a destiny." We can control our thoughts, we can control our feelings. Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Proverbs 16:32 Whoever is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit than he who takes a city. We can agree that Christ commands us to control our tempers, to control our feelings of anger. Why are some feelings more special than other feelings? We recognize that to feel unjustified anger at a brother is sinful. We recognize that when we are driving down the freeway and someone cuts us off we should be slow to be angry, we recognize that we can in fact slowly over time modify our feelings such as anger, guilt, sadness, etc. So why can those who have homosexual feelings not do the same? Why is there this special class of individuals called "homosexuals" who have license to feel sexual feelings for those they shouldn't? It is because we are blinded, we have become enticed by the sophistry of man and instead of holding fast to God's Word we look to man to save us. We all recognize that to feel sexual urges for a 5 year old is morally repugnant, yet again if what you and others claim is true, it should not be morally repugnant. There is certainly a difference between a thought/feeling and an act. Yet we do well to remember Alma 12: 14 For our awords will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us; and in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God; and we would fain be glad if we could command the rocks and the bmountains to fall upon us to chide us from his presence.
YJacket Posted September 24, 2018 Posted September 24, 2018 (edited) 21 minutes ago, smac97 said: I suppose. Actually, I think the "ultimate source" is the Spirit. It is by the Spirit that we meaningfully and correctly interpret and apply scripture. It is by the Spirit that we listen and accept, or not, the counsel of living prophets and apostles. It is by the Spirit that we "may know the truth of all things" (Moroni 10:5). Actually, it is upon revelation from the Spirit that the Church is built. See Matthew 16:18 ("And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church..."), History of the Church, 5:258 ("Jesus in His teachings says, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ [Matthew 16:18.] What rock? Revelation."). In another sense (still revelatory, though) it is apostles which are the "foundation" of the Church, "Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone" (Eph. 2:20). Scriptures are a record of revelation to prophets and apostles. They are very important, see here: That sound good to me. And yet a canonized scripture appears to allow for non-canonized "scripture." Thus the scriptures are not the sum total of revelation or scripture given to us. Surely we are obligated/bound to follow prophetic counsel to the extent it is in accordance with the scriptures. Ah. Looks like we agree on that point. As would the vista of millions of members of the Church spread all over the world, such that the "conventions" used in the early days of the Church are no longer practical. I think a revelation that clearly lays out the Law of Chastity as pertaining to the same-sex attraction and same-sex marriage would be helpful (though probably divisive). Thanks, -Smac Oh, I firmly agree with you about the Spirit, but I left it out for a very specific reason and it's something we don't talk about much in the Church. Following the right Spirit, the Spirit of God vs. the Spirit of the Devil is crucial. There have been and will continue to be many, many people who follow the Spirit of the Devil. He is crafty, he is willy, and can appear as an angel of light. The main reason why we put so much emphasis on following the Prophet (IMO), is because he is supposed to have enough experience with both Spirits to correctly see between them. It's why I go back to Authorized Scripture. One of the ways we can determine is by going to authorized scripture. If someone is speaking by the "Spirit" and it doesn't conform to Authorized Scripture-we should take a hard look at what they are saying. I believe as we get closer and closer to Christ's coming that members will have to gain their own light and become their own prophets. I absolutely love the quote in DC-thank you! "And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation." Exactly right! But that isn't reserved for ONLY Prophets and Apostles. It is for ANY ordained man who is righteous!!!! Yet again, clearly there is a difference between what is binding upon an individual as spoken in GC vs. written down approved, sustained Word of God. To the bold, oh absolutely! Most definitely! I'm not convinced conventions are "no longer" practical-they aren't practical because they take work. I've been a part of conventions and it takes a lot of personal work, study, etc. to actually participate, to take personal responsibility. Most people don't care that much to really get that involved, it's much easier to just let "the leader" do all the work. I get it. Again, doctrinally I don't see a need for a revelation on it. Societal-wise, sure absolutely, let's find out where people stand. Edited September 24, 2018 by YJacket
smac97 Posted September 24, 2018 Posted September 24, 2018 1 minute ago, YJacket said: Quote Actually, not that simple. "Homosexuality" conflates some very different things into one whole. Surely there is a difference between an unbidden "thought" or "feeling" and acting on such a thought or feeling. I don't think I'm blinded. The Church's position differentiates what you conflate. And it's a meaningful difference. Smac, I will let Christ and God be the judge of being blinded . . . however, I believe many members of the Church are. Okay. But I don't think the Brethren, unified as they are, are "blinded" when they differentiate between the things you are conflating. 1 minute ago, YJacket said: They are deeply confused and blinded. We never think we are blinded when we are blinded. That applies to all of us, surely. 1 minute ago, YJacket said: The nature of human beings doesn't change, that nature has been the same from the beginning of time. There is no "new" problem that has only occurred in the last 50 years with regards to homosexuality. Well, I disagree. There is now much more social acceptance of it than in the past. Moreover, same-sex marriage is indisputably something that did not exist 50 years ago. The social conditions under which same-sex attraction, same-sex behavior, and same-sex marriage now exist are very different from 50 years ago. And yet, in the end, the Law of Chastity has remained substantively unchanged in its application. 1 minute ago, YJacket said: However, because we are modern, we fancy ourselves as more enlightened, we fancy that we have so much more technology and so much more science that we understand the nature of human beings much better . . .it is a fallacy and a belief in a false God, worshiping at the alter of man. To the bold . . .and thus we see how the Devil gets his hooks into the membership and thus how members become blinded. "Sow a thought and you reap an action; sow an act and you reap a habit; sow a habit and you reap a character; sow a character and you reap a destiny." We can control our thoughts, we can control our feelings. I agree. Hence the distinction the Church allows between people who are attracted to members of the same sex. Those who do control their thoughts/feelings (by constraining themselves from acting on them) can and do remain in full fellowship in the Church, while those who do not fully control their thoughts/feelings (by engaging in behaviors congruent therewith) do not remain in full fellowship. 1 minute ago, YJacket said: We can agree that Christ commands us to control our tempers, to control our feelings of anger. Why are some feelings more special than other feelings? We recognize that to feel unjustified anger at a brother is sinful. We recognize that when we are driving down the freeway and someone cuts us off we should be slow to be angry, we recognize that we can in fact slowly over time modify our feelings such as anger, guilt, sadness, etc. So why can those who have homosexual feelings not do the same? Try telling the average heterosexual mail that he can in fact slowly over time modify his feelings such s to come to feel sexually attracted to members of the same sex. I think most would reject this. I do not think sexual orientation is a series of discrete and mutually exclusive categories. It's more like a spectrum. And for some, there may be some fluidity to it. But it can also be an innate and immutable attraction for others. There is no one-size-fits-all explanation for same-sex attraction. 1 minute ago, YJacket said: Why is there this special class of individuals called "homosexuals" who have license to feel sexual feelings for those they shouldn't? I think that is more a sociopolitical argument, rather than a moral/religious one. 1 minute ago, YJacket said: It is because we are blinded, we have become enticed by the sophistry of man and instead of holding fast to God's Word we look to man to save us. What's this "we," kemosabe? 😀 1 minute ago, YJacket said: We all recognize that to feel sexual urges for a 5 year old is morally repugnant, yet again if what you and others claim is true, it should not be morally repugnant. I'm not sure age-based sexual attraction is interchangeable with gender-based sexual attraction. I jus can't really get on board with the mindreading-and-judgment-of-innermost-souls that seems to be part and parcel of what you are saying here. The general authorities of the Church are working hard to help people of good will address very difficult issues pertaining to sexual ethics and the Law of Chastity. 1 minute ago, YJacket said: There is certainly a difference between a thought/feeling and an act. Good. I'm glad we can agree on that. 1 minute ago, YJacket said: Yet we do well to remember Alma 12: 14 For our awords will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us; and in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God; and we would fain be glad if we could command the rocks and the bmountains to fall upon us to chide us from his presence. I agree with this. Thanks, -Smac
YJacket Posted September 24, 2018 Posted September 24, 2018 36 minutes ago, kllindley said: What I find interesting, is that both the train of thought represented by @YJacket and that espoused by more liberal, progressive opinions about homosexuality are guilty of rejecting the differentiation you describe. I think sometimes the conflation is unconscious, but in both of these instances it seems very intentional. Because the differentiation is a middle-way compromise that cannot hold. It simply can't. Either we can control our thoughts and feelings or we can't. Either it is inborn/fixed or it is not. If it is inborn/fixed and we can't control our thoughts and feelings than there are a whole host of other things besides simple homosexuality that should be allowed that simply hasn't been recognized as of yet as inborn/fixed. If it is not inborn/fixed and we can control our thoughts and feelings, then the Church has been teaching us wrong and the leaders will one day stand accountable before God for it.
smac97 Posted September 24, 2018 Posted September 24, 2018 4 minutes ago, YJacket said: Oh, I firmly agree with you about the Spirit, but I left it out for a very specific reason and it's something we don't talk about much in the Church. Following the right Spirit, the Spirit of God vs. the Spirit of the Devil is crucial. And so axiomatic that references to the "Spirit" are going to be construed as "the Spirit of God." 4 minutes ago, YJacket said: There have been and will continue to be many, many people who follow the Spirit of the Devil. He is crafty, he is willy, and can appear as an angel of light. The main reason why we put so much emphasis on following the Prophet (IMO), is because he is supposed to have enough experience with both Spirits to correctly see between them. Well, no. There are also plenty of scriptures that exhort us to listen to prophetic counsel. 4 minutes ago, YJacket said: It's why I go back to Authorized Scripture. One of the ways we can determine is by going to authorized scripture. I agree. 4 minutes ago, YJacket said: If someone is speaking by the "Spirit" and it doesn't conform to Authorized Scripture-we should take a hard look at what they are saying. Whether or not something conforms to scripture is often in the eye of the beholder. Hence the need for prophetic counsel. Hence the need for us to study such things out per D&C 9 and pursue revelatory guidance for ourselves. The tripartite formula, in other words. (D) Guidance from God = (A) Scriptures + (B) Ongoing Prophetic Counsel + (C) Personal Revelation and Assessment. 4 minutes ago, YJacket said: I believe as we get closer and closer to Christ's coming that members will have to gain their own light and become their own prophets. I absolutely love the quote in DC-thank you! "And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation." Exactly right! But that isn't reserved for ONLY Prophets and Apostles. It is for ANY ordained man who is righteous!!!! It is for anyone who has the gift of the Holy Ghost, yes. 4 minutes ago, YJacket said: I'm not convinced conventions are "no longer" practical-they aren't practical because they take work. Because there are millions of members. Spread throughout the world. And yet we still have General Conference. We still have sustaining votes. Thanks, -Smac
rockpond Posted September 24, 2018 Posted September 24, 2018 1 minute ago, YJacket said: Because the differentiation is a middle-way compromise that cannot hold. It simply can't. At least I agree with you on this one point. Not much else though. 1
smac97 Posted September 24, 2018 Posted September 24, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, YJacket said: Quote What I find interesting, is that both the train of thought represented by @YJacket and that espoused by more liberal, progressive opinions about homosexuality are guilty of rejecting the differentiation you describe. I think sometimes the conflation is unconscious, but in both of these instances it seems very intentional. Because the differentiation is a middle-way compromise that cannot hold. It simply can't. I disagree. I think it can and will hold up quite well. Quote Either we can control our thoughts and feelings or we can't. Either it is inborn/fixed or it is not. If it is inborn/fixed and we can't control our thoughts and feelings than there are a whole host of other things besides simple homosexuality that should be allowed that simply hasn't been recognized as of yet as inborn/fixed. I think you materially misconstrue the point. We are not saying that "if it is inborn/fixed ... [it] should be allowed." To the contrary, the Church is saying that "even if it is inborn/fixed . . . [whether it is allowed is based on the Law of Chastity]." Quote If it is not inborn/fixed and we can control our thoughts and feelings, then the Church has been teaching us wrong and the leaders will one day stand accountable before God for it. "If." Thanks, -Smac Edited September 24, 2018 by smac97
YJacket Posted September 24, 2018 Posted September 24, 2018 7 minutes ago, smac97 said: Okay. But I don't think the Brethren, unified as they are, are "blinded" when they differentiate between the things you are conflating. That applies to all of us, surely. Well, I disagree. There is now much more social acceptance of it than in the past. Moreover, same-sex marriage is indisputably something that did not exist 50 years ago. The social conditions under which same-sex attraction, same-sex behavior, and same-sex marriage now exist are very different from 50 years ago. And yet, in the end, the Law of Chastity has remained substantively unchanged in its application. I agree. Hence the distinction the Church allows between people who are attracted to members of the same sex. Those who do control their thoughts/feelings (by constraining themselves from acting on them) can and do remain in full fellowship in the Church, while those who do not fully control their thoughts/feelings (by engaging in behaviors congruent therewith) do not remain in full fellowship. Try telling the average heterosexual mail that he can in fact slowly over time modify his feelings such s to come to feel sexually attracted to members of the same sex. I think most would reject this. I do not think sexual orientation is a series of discrete and mutually exclusive categories. It's more like a spectrum. And for some, there may be some fluidity to it. But it can also be an innate and immutable attraction for others. There is no one-size-fits-all explanation for same-sex attraction. I think that is more a sociopolitical argument, rather than a moral/religious one. What's this "we," kemosabe? 😀 I'm not sure age-based sexual attraction is interchangeable with gender-based sexual attraction. I jus can't really get on board with the mindreading-and-judgment-of-innermost-souls that seems to be part and parcel of what you are saying here. The general authorities of the Church are working hard to help people of good will address very difficult issues pertaining to sexual ethics and the Law of Chastity. Good. I'm glad we can agree on that. I agree with this. Thanks, -Smac The Brethren could be "unified" on a whole host of subject, but it doesn't make it right. If there were "unified" that we should all drink grape juice in the morning, it wouldn't make it a true principle. Certainly yes there is more social pressure in Western culture now vs. the past, but homosexuality has been around for a very, very long time. Look at pedastry in Roman/Greek cultures-it's not a new thing. Look at Muslim countries-where it occurs today. Which leads to another point, much of our behavior is socially constructed. And yet again social construction proves my point, our thoughts/feelings/patterns of behavior can be controlled-which is what God in the scriptures says. As it becomes more socially acceptable, it will become more prevalent. The data already shows that with youth today. Well discussing appropriate discipline for various thoughts/feelings/acts is something totally different. You're bringing in another dimension. We can go down that route if you like, but I would rather prefer to stay at the theological level of "is it wrong, does it constitute sin". There are plenty of men who lust after women in the Church, but we recognize that for what it is-sin-even if we don't kick them out of the Church. To the bold, yes most probably would b/c they choose that route. Of course, sexuality is a "spectrum" and changes if desired, I don't think that's anything new. OT talks about men/women lying with beasts, this was known 1000s of years ago. To the 2nd bold, why not? What is so different about age-base sexual attraction vs. gender-based sexual attraction vs. animal-based sexual attraction vs. computer/technology/new age earth sexual attraction? Simply b/c you've been taught by modern culture that it's different? It all deals with the exact same thing, having sexual urges, i.e. wanting to commit sexual acts with someone who is not your spouse (and by spouse meaning as described in scripture). It's the untruth that homosexuals told in order to get people on board with their ideology. "mindreading-and-judgment-of-innermost-souls"??? Please point me to where I have said something that is not backed by God's Word, I will certainly recant if I have done so. Of course the GA's are working hard, it's not a difficult issue, people just don't want to hear what the problem is-which it is rooted in our sinful natures.
YJacket Posted September 24, 2018 Posted September 24, 2018 (edited) 23 minutes ago, smac97 said: And so axiomatic that references to the "Spirit" are going to be construed as "the Spirit of God." Well, no. There are also plenty of scriptures that exhort us to listen to prophetic counsel. I agree. Whether or not something conforms to scripture is often in the eye of the beholder. Hence the need for prophetic counsel. Hence the need for us to study such things out per D&C 9 and pursue revelatory guidance for ourselves. The tripartite formula, in other words. (D) Guidance from God = (A) Scriptures + (B) Ongoing Prophetic Counsel + (C) Personal Revelation and Assessment. It is for anyone who has the gift of the Holy Ghost, yes. Because there are millions of members. Spread throughout the world. And yet we still have General Conference. We still have sustaining votes. Thanks, -Smac Yes, I agree. But why do they do that? 1st because throughout the vast, vast majority of human history, only prophets, rabbi's, etc. actually had access to the written (or memorized) word of God. Therefore, having someone who was steeped in the word of God was important. 2nd, a prophet is one who walks and talks with God who is able to communicate better with God, so yes what I said earlier I think holds a lot of water (maybe not phrased exactly right). Yet the way we currently have Prophets is out-of-line with what recorded Scripture tells us generally occurs. I'm perfectly fine sustaining them as Prophets, Apostles, etc. but I recognize that it is an office and that an actual prophet does not need an official office in the Church. Prophets may be prophets and Apostles may be apostles, but there is a distinction between them. Number 11:29 And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them! Oh I totally agree with you on prophetic counsel. Edited September 24, 2018 by YJacket
Scott Lloyd Posted September 24, 2018 Posted September 24, 2018 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Hence the wisdom to a tripartite approach to such things. For me, the formula goes like this: (D) Guidance from God = (A) Scriptures + (B) Ongoing Prophetic Counsel + (C) Personal Revelation and Assessment. If one of these three is "out of tune" with the others, my first effort will be to re-evaluate (C), as that is probably the most likely to be in error. My second effort would be to review a specific instance of (B) in the context of other instances of (B) to see if the specific instance is perhaps a bit off. Thy third effort would be to re-evaluate my understanding of (A). This often involves examination of historical/cultural context, translation issues, the scope and sphere of "likening" the scriptures to me, and so on. I am not sure I understand your apparent complaint about delays between instances of canonization. In my view, "revelation" seems to be a fairly consistent topic in General Conference. I guess some members may differentiate between, on the one hand, "revelation" that involves actual words from God (such as D&C 137:7-10) and/or revelations that reveal something new or previously unknown (such as portions of D&C 138) and, on the other hand, "revelation" that only alludes to a revelatory experience, and/or does not include specifically-dictated-by-God-Himselve verbiage (OD-2). Some members may also differentiate between canonized and non-canonized revelation. That distinction is quite a bit easier to understand, and I think the sort of thing that Pres. Nelson is hoping to accommodate. Some members may also differentiate between "revelation" that pertains to ethereal "things of the spirit" (D&C 137 and D&C 138) as opposed to "revelation" that appears to administrative/procedural issues (the 2015 policy changes). Personally, I would like to see a canonized revelation on the subject of same-sex attraction and same-sex marriage. I think there are some members of the Church who have bought into the notion that there really isn't a scriptural basis for condemning homosexual conduct as sin, or that "same-sex marriage" can be a holy thing allowed or endorsed by God. A revelation on the subject would be painful for many Saints, and would probably cause some people to leave the Church. But it would also put an end to speculation, the scripture-wresting, and so on. Nevertheless, I am confident that the Brethren are aware of differing opinions in the Church on these issues, that they are discussing these issues with each other, that they are seeking divine guidance on these issues, and that if a revelation is not forthcoming, it will not be because the Brethren have refused to make these issues objects of discussion, study, pondering, fasting, praying, and so on. The Brethren are not all grouped together in some sort of echo chamber in Salt Lake. They are out and about constantly. They are in direct and constant communication with each other, with members of the quorums of seventies, who are in direct and constant communication with stake presidents, mission presidents and district presidents, who are in direct and constant communication with bishops and branch presidents, who are in direct and constant communication with members of their wards/branches. The Brethren also function in quorums. We have statements indicating unanimity amongst the Brethren as to the 2015 policy changes, and also that the unanimity arose from confirming revelation to the members of the Twelve. The function of quorums in the Church is important. Quorums operate as a bulwark against the risk of one individual leader characterizing his personal opinion as a revealed truth and then presenting it to the entirety of the Church. Decisions arising from quorums, particularly from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, can therefore provide quite a bit of comfort to the membership of the church. I'm not saying the decisions of these quorums are utterly without flaw or defect, but in terms of "broad strokes" the Brethren are getting things right, and are likely to continue to get things substantially right while they function in quorums. Thanks, -Smac Brace yourself, Smac, for accusations that you think the General Authorities are "infallible."
YJacket Posted September 24, 2018 Posted September 24, 2018 21 minutes ago, smac97 said: I disagree. I think it can and will hold up quite well. I think you materially misconstrue the point. We are not saying that "if it is inborn/fixed ... [it] should be allowed." To the contrary, the Church is saying that "even if it is inborn/fixed . . . [whether it is allowed is based on the Law of Chastity]." "If." Thanks, -Smac No the Church is on record saying that a homosexual can have homosexual thoughts and feelings and it is not sin. Currently, the Church is saying even if it is inborn/fixed, etc. then don't "act" on it. I'm telling you that cannot hold up over the test of time-it is a middle way that will eventually lead to complete collapse. It is simply not a logical position that can stand the test of time.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 24, 2018 Posted September 24, 2018 1 hour ago, kllindley said: What I find interesting, is that both the train of thought represented by @YJacket and that espoused by more liberal, progressive opinions about homosexuality are guilty of rejecting the differentiation you describe. I think sometimes the conflation is unconscious, but in both of these instances it seems very intentional. Often, the extreme left and the extreme right end up being quite similar in their thought and behavior patterns. Hence the similarity in totalitarian regimes, be they facist or communist. 1
YJacket Posted September 24, 2018 Posted September 24, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Brace yourself, Smac, for accusations that you think the General Authorities are "infallible." ???? I haven't said that and I don't think Smac thinks that. I think Smac places too much emphasis on what current leadership says vs. testing what leadership says to scripture. I think too many members of the Church simply do not really take the time to honestly determine if the GAs words follow scripture. I think Smac places maybe not enough emphasis on gaining our own light-but GA's "infallible" nope.
rockpond Posted September 24, 2018 Posted September 24, 2018 5 minutes ago, YJacket said: The Brethren could be "unified" on a whole host of subject, but it doesn't make it right. If there were "unified" that we should all drink grape juice in the morning, it wouldn't make it a true principle. Actually, the Apostles and Prophet being unified on something seems to be the most current definition of revelation for the church. Consider this statement from President (then Elder) Nelson in 2014: "The calling of 15 men to the holy apostleship provides great protection for us as members of the Church. Why? Because decisions of these leaders must be unanimous. Can you imagine how the Spirit needs to move upon 15 men to bring about unanimity? These 15 men have varied educational and professional backgrounds, with differing opinions about many things. Trust me! These 15 men—prophets, seers, and revelators—know what the will of the Lord is when unanimity is reached!" https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/sustaining-the-prophets?lang=eng
YJacket Posted September 24, 2018 Posted September 24, 2018 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: Often, the extreme left and the extreme right end up being quite similar in their thought and behavior patterns. Hence the similarity in totalitarian regimes, be they facist or communist. Hmm . . .very interesting Scott, instead of addressing the scriptures I have quoted you instead liken me to "totalitarian" regimes. I am frustrated that one cannot have a civil discussion without being compared to a facist or communist . . . but that's okay-I'm trying to exercise patience and not get upset and forgiveness. I would rather discuss the merits of the argument rather than throwing around terms which are meant to incite certain feelings. . .
Recommended Posts