Ed Smart, father of Elizabeth Smart, Announces he is gay

[ttribe]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Law of Chastity is not difficult to find.  It's not tucked away in an 1856 talk by Brigham Young to the members of the Church in Tooele.

Are you sure you want to refer the reader to 1856 teachings by Brigham Young on living, and enforcing, the Law of Chastity?  Perhaps you forgot this little nugget?

“Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them. You would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the Kingdom of God. I would at once do so, in such a case; and under the circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands.... There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it.”
- Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, pp. 108-109

[smac97]

Just now, ttribe said:

Quote

The Law of Chastity is not difficult to find.  It's not tucked away in an 1856 talk by Brigham Young to the members of the Church in Tooele.

Are you sure you want to refer the reader to 1856 teachings by Brigham Young on living, and enforcing, the Law of Chastity? 

Yes, I'm quite sure.

Just now, ttribe said:

Perhaps you forgot this little nugget?

“Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them. You would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the Kingdom of God. I would at once do so, in such a case; and under the circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands.... There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it.”
- Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, pp. 108-109

But you are only proving my point (or, rather, Elder Andersen's): 

Quote

A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.

Can you point me to repeated teachings of this javelin-related "doctrine?"  I doubt it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[6EQUJ5]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Man, I wish I could be this concise.  

So do we.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I understand your point, but to me there is a vast difference between Jesus (The Son of God) teaching a truth, and men (leaders of the church) teaching what they believe to be truth based on the traditions and teachings of other men.

IF I believed the church and its leaders to be perfect like Jesus, then I'd agree with you. But I don't so there's a disconnect.

I agree that I view the church differently than what it purports to be. But if the church's goal is to bring people to Christ through the saving ordinances of the church, and more and more people are leaving and rejecting the church, then it would seem the church isn't achieving it's stated mission, at least not as well as it previously had.

You know that straight and narrow gate that Jesus taught....that meant he recognized that heaven was not going to be the path chosen by a whole lot of his children.  His plan was not about saving everyone; his plan was about God's children CHOOSING to follow him. 

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I'm quite sure.

But you are only proving my point (or, rather, Elder Andersen's): 

Can you point me to repeated teachings of this javelin-related "doctrine?"  I doubt it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Why would I need to?  I don't suppose Brigham Young thought he needed to repeat himself, do you?  He hardly strikes me as the patient type.

Edited August 16, 2019 by ttribe

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Why would I need to?  I don't suppose Brigham Young thought he needed to repeat himself, do you?

You’re missing Smac’s point. There is apparently no record of that teaching being authoritatively repeated, by President Young or any other Church leader. Thus, it doesn’t pass the test given by Elder Andersen and cited by Smac. 

The law of chastity, on the other hand, is repeated over and over again. Hundreds of times a day, in fact. 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

So do we.

🙂

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Why would I need to? 

Because we are discussing Elder Andersen's point regarding where to find our doctrine ("True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.").

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You’re missing Smac’s point. There is apparently no record of that teaching being authoritatively repeated, by President Young or any other Church leader. Thus, it doesn’t pass the test given by Elder Andersen and cited by Smac. 

The law of chastity, on the other hand, is repeated over and over again. 

I'm not missing the point, at all.  I'm pointing out that smac is cherry-picking the portion of BY's teachings that supports his argument and ignoring those that either don't, or are embarrassing.  If you're going to hearken back to 1856 to prove the point that the Law of Chastity has been taught over and over again for many years, get ready to answer for why ALL of BY's teachings on the subject aren't still being taught.  You see, some of the counterargument being offered in this thread is that the current (and even long-held) teachings on the subject may be incorrect with respect to homosexuality.  If javelins no longer apply, why not the prohibition on homosexuality?  Now do you get it?

[Scott Lloyd]

Incidentally, this FairMormon treatment ...

https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/did-brigham-young-say-he-would-kill-an-adulterous-wife-with-a-javelin

... puts the “javelin doctrine” in context. 

And I have to say how saddened I am that ttribe, a former defender of the Church, is now engaging in the common anti-Mormon practice of taking out of context obscure remarks by long-dead Church leaders. 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Incidentally, this FairMormon treatment ...

https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/did-brigham-young-say-he-would-kill-an-adulterous-wife-with-a-javelin

... puts the “javelin doctrine” in context. 

And I have to say how saddened I am that tribe, a former defender of the Church, is now engaging in the common anti-Mormon practice of taking out of context obscure remarks by long-dead Church leaders. 

Oh, please.  You think I haven't read that meandering nightmare of a defense?  It's not one of FAIR's better efforts, nor is it any way authoritative.

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Incidentally, this FairMormon treatment ...

https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/did-brigham-young-say-he-would-kill-an-adulterous-wife-with-a-javelin

... puts the “javelin doctrine” in context. 

And I have to say how saddened I am that tribe, a former defender of the Church, is now engaging in the common anti-Mormon practice of taking out of context obscure remarks by long-dead Church leaders. 

Wow, context sure makes things look different

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm not missing the point, at all.  I'm pointing out that smac is cherry-picking the portion of BY's teachings that supports his argument and ignoring those that either don't, or are embarrassing.  If you're going to hearken back to 1856 to prove the point that the Law of Chastity has been taught over and over again for many years, get ready to answer for why ALL of BY's teachings on the subject aren't still being taught.  You see, some of the counterargument being offered in this thread is that the current (and even long-held) teachings on the subject may be incorrect with respect to homosexuality.  If javelins no longer apply, why not the prohibition on homosexuality?  Now do you get it?

Smac can speak for himself. But I disagree that in referring to the law of chastity, smac is cherry picking Brigham Young’s teachings. The law of chastity has been part and parcel of the teachings of the Church in every age. I’m hard pressed to think of a doctrine that has been taught more consistently. As I mentioned, it is repeated hundreds of times daily in various locations of the Church (if you get my meaning). 

[mrmarklin]

What a selfish A...........

To destroy one’s family this way is unforgivable IMHO.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Oh, please.  You think I haven't read that meandering nightmare of a defense?  It's not one of FAIR's better efforts, nor is it any way authoritative.

Apparently ksfisher, for one, disagrees with you. I think many people do. 

And if you already knew of the FairMormon treatment, it makes it yet worse that you would throw a bomb like that and not take cognizance if available analysis/explanation. 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Smac can speak for himself. But I disagree that in referring to the law of chastity, smac is cherry picking Brigham Young’s teachings. The law of chastity has been part and parcel of the teachings of the Church in every age. I’m hard pressed to think of a doctrine that has been taught more consistently. As I mentioned, it is repeated hundreds of times daily in various locations of the Church (if you get my meaning). 

Then, perhaps, you should have let him, in the first place.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm not missing the point, at all.  I'm pointing out that smac is cherry-picking the portion of BY's teachings that supports his argument and ignoring those that either don't, or are embarrassing. 

No, I'm not.  I was not referencing BY's "javelin" teachings.  I just picked a person (Brigham Young) and a year (1856) and a place (Tooele) out of the air.  You assumed the rest.

Brigham Young's "javelin" talk was given in 1856, but in the Salt Lake Tabernacle, not in Tooele.

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

If you're going to hearken back to 1856 to prove the point that the Law of Chastity has been taught over and over again for many years, get ready to answer for why ALL of BY's teachings on the subject aren't still being taught. 

No thanks.  You are missing my point, apparently by misapprehending my previous comment about Brigham Young saying something at some point to some people somewhere.

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You see, some of the counterargument being offered in this thread is that the current (and even long-held) teachings on the subject may be incorrect with respect to homosexuality. 

It's not much of a counter-argument.  "But I don't like it!" is an assertion, not an argument.

If you want to advance the idea that the Church's teachings as to homosexual behavior "may be incorrect," have at it.  I think you'll have a pretty difficult time of it, particularly because of the principle spoken of by Elder Andersen.

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

If javelins no longer apply, why not the prohibition on homosexuality? 

Again, I refer you to Elder Andersen's comment.

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Now do you get it?

No.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Nacho2dope]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Jesus drove away followers all the time with what he taught. Even in the Father’s presence a third part of the hosts of heaven fell. If they in their omniscience could not retain followers it is foolish to expect that we can come up with a way to make the gospel palatable to everyone. We should try to teach in a way that retains and entices but we should not expect total success. 

I really like this, thanks for sharing! 

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, I'm not.  I was not referencing BY's "javelin" teachings.  I just picked a person (Brigham Young) and a year (1856) and a place (Tooele) out of the air.  You assumed the rest.

Brigham Young's "javelin" talk was given in 1856, but in the Salt Lake Tabernacle, not in Tooele.

No thanks.  You are missing my point, apparently by misapprehending my previous comment about Brigham Young saying something at some point to some people somewhere.

It's not much of a counter-argument.  "But I don't like it!" is an assertion, not an argument.

If you want to advance the idea that the Church's teachings as to homosexual behavior "may be incorrect," have at it.  I think you'll have a pretty difficult time of it, particularly because of the principle spoken of by Elder Andersen.

Again, I refer you to Elder Andersen's comment.

No.

Thanks,

-Smac

Do you mean to tell me, you can't come up with a single example of a teaching, taught repeatedly, for a "long time", later being changed or abandoned?  Not one?

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Apparently ksfisher, for one, disagrees with you. I think many people do. 

And if you already knew of the FairMormon treatment, it makes it yet worse that you would throw a bomb like that and not take cognizance if available analysis/explanation. 

Spare me your indignance.  The context doesn't help, at all.  It only succeeds in tying the teaching back to an equally horrendous Old Testament teaching.  It has nothing to do with the point at hand.  That kfisher naively gobbled up FAIR's explanation is no concern of mine.

[clarkgoble]

50 minutes ago, california boy said:

Didn't the Church already go through this cycle of so many rules and regulations that many during the time of Christ just couldn't deal with it.  How many steps allowed on the Sabbath, not picking corn on the Sabbath, not stitching a button on a jacket.  The list was endless as it is today.

I think that as soon as you have ethics or at least important performative norms you have that problem. You're focused on religion, but look at secular culture and the question of what does or doesn't count as consent, when it counts as consent, what is racism, or so forth. Same thing happens. It's inherent to trying to codify norms particularly when people don't always agree. If it's just an issue of the individual then perhaps we could say they don't matter that much. But as soon as they apply to relations between two people, the problem of delineation is unavoidable and can have real world consequences. You're not thinking your a racist may suit you fine, but you have to interact with others who may very well disagree with your judgment. Adjudicating such concerns is non-trivial.

We can talk about teaching principles, but that really doesn't avoid the issue. First off for principles to be functional we have to understand them. Secondly for principles to act as norms they have to be applied.

Many people particularly of the rising generations, disparage religion or other organizations for apparently having such petty rules, not seeing that concerns about power, consent and so forth bring them to the exact same problem.

Edited August 16, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Then, perhaps, you should have let him, in the first place.

Drive-by one-liners are not impressive. 

And Smac affirmed what I said: that you are missing his point. 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Do you mean to tell me, you can't come up with a single example of a teaching, taught repeatedly, for a "long time", later being changed or abandoned?  Not one?

By that logic we could safely work our way around every one of the 10 commandments. 

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That kfisher naively gobbled up FAIR's explanation

Thank you for the complement. 

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

By that logic we could safely work our way around every one of the 10 commandments. 

Perhaps you should point that out to Elder Anderson.  Frequently teaching something that is wrong for a long time does not make it true or right.  Asserting frequency and length of time as evidence of truth and correctness is fraught with pitfalls.  THAT IS MY POINT.

Edited August 16, 2019 by ttribe