JLHPROF Posted October 8, 2019 Posted October 8, 2019 14 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Correct! I wish Pres. Oaks had not concentrated so much on the minority group such as the LGBTQ's in the church, but speak on the problem of immorality of the heterosexuals in the church who do extreme harm, in marriages etc. when they are having affairs right and left. JS saying God commanded him to have many wives is another type of marriage. And I recently became aware that in section 132 in the Doctrine and Covenants, it doesn't mention love once! And this is supposedly all about eternal marriage. So marriage basically need not have love in our church apparently. I guess we just need our organs to reproduce and if they aren't organs that are compatible for that, then it's wrong. You can't blame the Church for adhering to what God established in the beginning. God established marriage with Adam and Eve and set the very definition of it's application and purpose. Anything that doesn't fit that design isn't marriage. 1
Tacenda Posted October 8, 2019 Posted October 8, 2019 Just now, JLHPROF said: You can't blame the Church for adhering to what God established in the beginning. God established marriage with Adam and Eve and set the very definition of it's application and purpose. Anything that doesn't fit that design isn't marriage. Oh, where are the other wives? Did God establish that? Oh wait, I know your answer. See it's not cut and dried here. I don't even know if the Garden of Eden even existed, because some believing LDS have mentioned on this site that it is a metaphor.
etana Posted October 8, 2019 Posted October 8, 2019 23 minutes ago, Ahab said: Yes, they choose to break laws, but we can classify those people who choose to break those laws by the laws they are choosing to break. Thieves. By that name it is understood that we are talking about people who choose to break laws against stealing. Fornicators. By that name it is understood that we are talking about people who choose to break laws against chastity in sexual relations. Liars. By that name it is understood that we are talking about people who choose to break laws against always being honest in all of our actions. etc, etc. Note though that those names apply only when someone hasn't repented of those sinful actions, because when they repent we would more correctly refer to them as former breakers of laws of particular types, or former sinners, or saints. doubling down on your broken metaphor doesn't make it any more applicable.
Ahab Posted October 8, 2019 Posted October 8, 2019 3 minutes ago, etana said: doubling down on your broken metaphor doesn't make it any more applicable. You can continue to deny the truth as much as you want and I will continue to declare it.
JLHPROF Posted October 8, 2019 Posted October 8, 2019 31 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Oh, where are the other wives? Did God establish that? Oh wait, I know your answer. See it's not cut and dried here. I don't even know if the Garden of Eden even existed, because some believing LDS have mentioned on this site that it is a metaphor. Well then go with what Christ said. "Have you not read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate." It IS cut and dry. Marriage is the joining of man and woman by God for the purpose of procreation. Anything else isn't a marriage. 2
stemelbow Posted October 8, 2019 Posted October 8, 2019 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: You can't blame the Church for adhering to what God established in the beginning. God established marriage with Adam and Eve and set the very definition of it's application and purpose. Anything that doesn't fit that design isn't marriage. What is odd is God didn't do that. The Adam and Eve story was created at some point, but its hardly factual and seems to derive from ancient traditions. it seems to me old traditions made the Adam and Eve story. I don't think it's wise to treat such traditions as if they are from God--as the leaders of the Church are want to do. I've said a few times and in various ways these types of assumptions are exactly what will be questioned in years to come, as the Church changes with the times. It's happened before and will happen again. We're foolish to think answers are found in the scriptures when we can't treat them as some infallible word of God.
Ahab Posted October 8, 2019 Posted October 8, 2019 1 minute ago, stemelbow said: What is odd is God didn't do that. The Adam and Eve story was created at some point, but its hardly factual and seems to derive from ancient traditions. it seems to me old traditions made the Adam and Eve story. I don't think it's wise to treat such traditions as if they are from God--as the leaders of the Church are want to do. I've said a few times and in various ways these types of assumptions are exactly what will be questioned in years to come, as the Church changes with the times. It's happened before and will happen again. We're foolish to think answers are found in the scriptures when we can't treat them as some infallible word of God. Traces of the Adam and Eve story in ancient traditions are evidence that the Adam and Eve story is ancient and that there was an apostasy of the true account of that story. Different accounts in different traditions can't all be true, but there is still some truth in the stories. 1
stemelbow Posted October 8, 2019 Posted October 8, 2019 1 minute ago, Ahab said: Traces of the Adam and Eve story in ancient traditions are evidence that the Adam and Eve story is ancient and that there was an apostasy of the true account of that story. Different accounts in different traditions can't all be true, but there is still some truth in the stories. I know I"m going to lose my ability to post here in a bit, but in response let's consider the comment I made in the other thread: "It's easy enough to make something up and twist around some logical ideas in order to make something fit. Yes, that's been done to death here and even amongst my ward members to an extent or two."😉
Ahab Posted October 8, 2019 Posted October 8, 2019 5 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I know I"m going to lose my ability to post here in a bit, but in response let's consider the comment I made in the other thread: "It's easy enough to make something up and twist around some logical ideas in order to make something fit. Yes, that's been done to death here and even amongst my ward members to an extent or two."😉 That's one rebuttal among the many you could have chosen. Just post that every time someone says anything you have already heard and don't like to hear very much. I wonder what it is you are looking for. Adam and Eve in the spirit world while telling you they really did live and see what they said they saw back then? I don't think that's going to work out very good for you because I'm pretty sure they have already moved on, resurrected after Christ was resurrected. So I don't think you will be seeing or hearing them in the spirit world. Or Abraham or Moses, either. Not anybody who was righteous in their lives and knew what the truth was who had died before Christ was resurrected. Not even Nephi or Lehi or Mosiah or Alma or Mormon. Oh, wait, maybe you might see Mormon. I wouldn't count on it, though. He is just going to be one among many many who might be in the spirit world by the time you get there.
JLHPROF Posted October 8, 2019 Posted October 8, 2019 22 minutes ago, stemelbow said: What is odd is God didn't do that. The Adam and Eve story was created at some point, but its hardly factual and seems to derive from ancient traditions. it seems to me old traditions made the Adam and Eve story. I don't think it's wise to treat such traditions as if they are from God--as the leaders of the Church are want to do. I've said a few times and in various ways these types of assumptions are exactly what will be questioned in years to come, as the Church changes with the times. It's happened before and will happen again. We're foolish to think answers are found in the scriptures when we can't treat them as some infallible word of God. That is a skeptic POV. I happen to believe the Adam and Eve "story" to be a historical event, even if the story itself is filled with metaphor.
stemelbow Posted October 8, 2019 Posted October 8, 2019 48 minutes ago, Ahab said: That's one rebuttal among the many you could have chosen. Just post that every time someone says anything you have already heard and don't like to hear very much. I wonder what it is you are looking for. Adam and Eve in the spirit world while telling you they really did live and see what they said they saw back then? I don't think that's going to work out very good for you because I'm pretty sure they have already moved on, resurrected after Christ was resurrected. So I don't think you will be seeing or hearing them in the spirit world. Or Abraham or Moses, either. Not anybody who was righteous in their lives and knew what the truth was who had died before Christ was resurrected. Not even Nephi or Lehi or Mosiah or Alma or Mormon. Oh, wait, maybe you might see Mormon. I wouldn't count on it, though. He is just going to be one among many many who might be in the spirit world by the time you get there. I just want some sort of acknowledgement when these things are said suggesting that even if it's in the Bible, BoM etc it does not mean God said it. 49 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: That is a skeptic POV. I happen to believe the Adam and Eve "story" to be a historical event, even if the story itself is filled with metaphor. Believe what you want, but that hardly means God said anything about marriage regarding it.
Ahab Posted October 8, 2019 Posted October 8, 2019 10 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I just want some sort of acknowledgement when these things are said suggesting that even if it's in the Bible, BoM etc it does not mean God said it. I can give you that. I can acknowledge that just because something is written in the Bible or Book of Mormon that doesn't mean God has said it. If God actually said what the Bible or Book of Mormon say that God said it is what God has said only to the extent that it is what God actually said, and not just because it says so in the Bible or Book of Mormon. So to find out IF God actually said what those texts say that God said we need something more than just the text that says so, otherwise our only reason to believe that God said that or any portion of that is because the text says so. And that isn't the way it is supposed to work. When I see what the apostle Paul said in the New Testament portion of the Bible, for example, like when he said the Lord appeared to him on the road to Damascus, I need something more than Paul's word to know IF our Lord actually said what Paul said he said. I need like a totally personal answer from God to me, personally, to let me know that God actually said what Paul said that he said. Or for God to let me know he said something different than what Paul said that he said. Either way, what I want is for God to tell me something, personally, either in agreement with what he said to someone else or something different if God wants to tell me something different than what someone else said that God said. And I get that kind of thing, and apparently some other people do too because there are other people in this world who have apparently been told the same thing by God that God has told me. And I think this is the way it is supposed to work.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 8, 2019 Author Posted October 8, 2019 3 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Well then go with what Christ said. "Have you not read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate." It IS cut and dry. Marriage is the joining of man and woman by God for the purpose of procreation. Anything else isn't a marriage. I agree with you on the response. But I agree with Tacenda’s rendering of the stock expression “cut and dried” (not “cut and dry”). 1
esodije Posted November 5, 2019 Posted November 5, 2019 I apologize for not reading through the entire thread to understand where it’s gone, but I have two thoughts: (1) what would the early Saints (~1840) have thought if they’d known that at least 180 more years would pass with no Second Coming? and (2) what will happen to the church if many more generations pass without the fulfillment of that prophecy? I don’t think the early Saints would have felt as much urgency to “gather in scattered Israel,” and I believe the church will have to perform some hard-to-predict doctrinal contortions in the future to try to stay relevant in an increasingly godless and faithless world.
Calm Posted November 5, 2019 Posted November 5, 2019 (edited) 35 minutes ago, esodije said: in an increasingly godless and faithless world I think this assumes something that is not a given. The world is quite religious in many parts plus as far as interest in faith, it seems to cycle in and out of it. There may be a resurgence in the areas where interest has lessen due to who knows what. Edited November 5, 2019 by Calm
Scott Lloyd Posted November 6, 2019 Author Posted November 6, 2019 8 hours ago, esodije said: I apologize for not reading through the entire thread to understand where it’s gone, but I have two thoughts: (1) what would the early Saints (~1840) have thought if they’d known that at least 180 more years would pass with no Second Coming? and (2) what will happen to the church if many more generations pass without the fulfillment of that prophecy? I don’t think the early Saints would have felt as much urgency to “gather in scattered Israel,” and I believe the church will have to perform some hard-to-predict doctrinal contortions in the future to try to stay relevant in an increasingly godless and faithless world. Heaven help us if a perceived need to stay “relevant” to “godless and faithless” trends ever begins to drive the doctrine in the Church of Jesus Christ. 3
Meadowchik Posted November 6, 2019 Posted November 6, 2019 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Heaven help us if a perceived need to stay “relevant” to “godless and faithless” trends ever begins to drive the doctrine in the Church of Jesus Christ. It's always imperative to be relevant if the mission is salvation of all God's children.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 6, 2019 Author Posted November 6, 2019 3 hours ago, Meadowchik said: It's always imperative to be relevant if the mission is salvation of all God's children. Not if being “relevant” entails acting or behaving in a way contrary to the revealed will of God. Doing so was the very essence of the Great Apostasy that necessitated the Restoration of priesthood authority and keys and doctrinal purity in latter days. 1
Meadowchik Posted November 6, 2019 Posted November 6, 2019 25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Not if being “relevant” entails acting or behaving in a way contrary to the revealed will of God. Doing so was the very essence of the Great Apostasy that necessitated the Restoration of priesthood authority and keys and doctrinal purity in latter days. But that is not the concern expressed by esodije, which was more about legitimacy of the message itself, the message that the church has to offer other people. And in my opinion, the Great Apostasy seems more like the result of authoritarianism. People used it to collectivise power to advance material interests, and had to increasingly become more controlling to maintain the system.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 6, 2019 Author Posted November 6, 2019 5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: But that is not the concern expressed by esodije, which was more about legitimacy of the message itself, the message that the church has to offer other people. esodije spoke of the Church needing to do “doctrinal contortions” in order to stay “relevant” in a “godless and faithless world”. To me that sounds an awful lot like allowing changing social whims to drive doctrine. I can’t see that the Church of Jesus Christ in this last dispensation would ever do that. esodije, of course, is welcome to clarify as he or she sees fit. “And in my opinion, the Great Apostasy seems more like the result of authoritarianism. People used it to collectivise power to advance material interests, and had to increasingly become more controlling to maintain the system.” You’re entitled to your opinion. But the fact is the doctrine became intermixed with Hellenic philosophy and corrupted to the point that priesthood keys and authority were removed from the earth.
Meadowchik Posted November 6, 2019 Posted November 6, 2019 16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You’re entitled to your opinion. But the fact is the doctrine became intermixed with Hellenic philosophy and corrupted to the point that priesthood keys and authority were removed from the earth. Hellenic influence a given, the corruption is still your as subjective assessment. Iow, your opinion. Anyways, going from what esodije did say, the point was the legitimacy of claims being subverted by actual events. They said nothing about changing to fit the whims of the day, which is what you yourself introduced.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 6, 2019 Author Posted November 6, 2019 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Hellenic influence a given, the corruption is still your as subjective assessment. Iow, your opinion. Anyways, going from what esodije did say, the point was the legitimacy of claims being subverted by actual events. They said nothing about changing to fit the whims of the day, which is what you yourself introduced. “They”? Is esodije a collective? I have quoted the words from esodije that gave me my impression, and his/her post is there for anyone to read. I think mine is a more-than-reasonable conclusion. But again, he/she is welcome to clarify. Hellenic influence in early Christianity is a historical given, one that cannot be dismissed with a blithe wave of the hand, but again, you are entitled to your opinion. Edited November 6, 2019 by Scott Lloyd
Meadowchik Posted November 6, 2019 Posted November 6, 2019 15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Hellenic influence in early Christianity is a historical given, one that cannot be dismissed with a blithe wave of the hand, but again, you are entitled to your opinion. I didn't dismiss it, but assumed it a given. Again, esodije said nothing about changing because of trends and cultures, but specifically cited examples undermining the church's relevance.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 6, 2019 Author Posted November 6, 2019 1 minute ago, Meadowchik said: I didn't dismiss it, but assumed it a given. Again, esodije said nothing about changing because of trends and cultures, but specifically cited examples undermining the church's relevance. You’re repeating yourself. Unless you have something new to offer, I’m not inclined to continue this conversation.
Meadowchik Posted November 6, 2019 Posted November 6, 2019 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You’re repeating yourself. Unless you have something new to offer, I’m not inclined to continue this conversation. Emkay, probably just as well. You seemed to be talking past me instead of really responding.
Recommended Posts