california boy Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 14 minutes ago, smac97 said: I don't think we can say that. Polygamy is moral when God says it is, and immoral when God says it is. I don't think there is an inherent moral quality to it. Thanks, -Smac So if a group came forth with claims that God was ok with gay marriage, then you wouldn't have any issue with it?
california boy Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 23 minutes ago, SeekerB said: I've heard that the number of marriages that succeed and only end with the death of one of the spouses is more like 65%. There are people who marry and divorce multiple times. This group skews the numbers. I tried to find current numbers on successful marriages but can only find the much bantered about 50% rate. Whatever the number, those claiming that gay marriage somehow ruined the definition of Marriage are delusional The only marriage people should be concerned with is their own. Attacking gay marriage comes across as nothing but attacking gay couples. Something that has redefined the Church as a homophobic Church to those outside its membership. Those same people that have no problem attacking gay couples go ballistic when someone attacks their own beliefs. .This cherry picking of what defines marriage is nothing but hypocrisy completely ignoring the bigger picture.
smac97 Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 1 hour ago, california boy said: Given your history of attacking gay couples, A rank falsehood. I've done no such thing. Classic ad hominem by you. 1 hour ago, california boy said: certainly not a surprise to me. Completely ignoring the infidelity of straight couples both in and outside of marriage. I don't ignore it. It's not the topic. 1 hour ago, california boy said: Completely ignoring that a lot of straight marriages do not include procreation. Most do. Let's not argue from the margins. Heterosexual marriage creates children. Same-day marriage does not. 1 hour ago, california boy said: Completely ignoring that gay marriage can also have a stabilizing effect on gay families. Showing no proof that gay marriage has had even the slightest effect on straight marriage. So sick of members of the Church and their hypocrisy attacking gay couples A rank falsehood. I've done no such thing. Classic ad hominem by you. 1 hour ago, california boy said: and their children, justifying their attacks in the name of God. Your attack on gay marriage does nothing but reinforces the belief in the public's mind that the Mormon Church is homophobic. Nope. I have a principled and reasoned disagreement with it. And your response to that disagreement is straight up ad hominem, with a dash of anti-mormon libel to end it. -Smac 1
california boy Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 6 hours ago, smac97 said: " CB, you seem like a pretty stand-up guy. So for the life of me I cannot figure out how or why you expect us to ignore published statements from your compatriots, as follows: "The real question that should be debated is not whether gay marriage should be allowed, but rather, is marriage really something we need anymore?" "A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. {Legalizing "same-sex marriage"} is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.” "And after all, we are advocating the destruction of the centrality of marriage and the nuclear family unit... ." "But perhaps the next step isn’t to, once again, expand the otherwise narrow definition of marriage but to altogether abolish the false distinction between married families and other equally valid but unrecognized partnerships." "Wouldn't marriage's death as a state institution, including for straight people, be the best solution?" "Marriage is the proverbial burning building. Instead of pounding on the door to be let in... queers should be stoking the flames!" "We must aim at the abolition of the family, so that the sexist, male supremacist system can no longer be nurtured there." "... fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist." "Rather than being transformed by the institution of marriage, gay men — some of whom have raised the concept of the ‘open relationship’ to an art form — could simply transform the institution itself, making it more sexually open, even influencing their heterosexual counterparts.’’ So please explain. We are listening to your compatriots who are making public declarations about marriage being an "archaic institution" that they want to "radically alter," that it may be something we don't even "need anymore," that they are "advocating the destruction of the centrality of marriage and the nuclear family unit," that they want to "abolish" any distinctions between marital and non-marital relationships," that the "death" of marriage would be "the best solution" for "straight people," that "queers should be stoking the flames" destroying marriage, that their "aim" is the "abolition of the family," that they have been "lying" about what they are going to do with marriage once same-sex marriage became a reality, that marriage "should (not) exist," and that they are hoping to export the infidelity/promiscuity inherent in "open" gay marriages to "their heterosexual counterparts." We're reading these things, and you are accusing us of paranoia when we say that marriage is "under attack." We feel this way because your compatriots are openly telling as much. So what gives? Oh My Gosh, SMAC, you seem like a pretty stand-up guy. So for the life of me I cannot figure out how or why you expect us to ignore published statements from your compatriots. Would you really like me to list all the members and former members of the Church who have written books, blogs and podcasts starting with the CES letter and going from there? Let's believe all of them as well simply because they were members when they made most of their statements. Must be true huh. Your cut and past posts only reinforce the unfair attacks you and other Mormons and the Church itself have done and continue to do on gays, and their families. Not surprised, just sick and tired of it. Do you really think your posts are valid and necessary to gin up more prejudice? Are there not any members on this board that are willing to call you on your crap? You make me so glad I am no longer a member of that church. (My bold and underline on the first sentence for emphasis)
california boy Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: A rank falsehood. I've done no such thing. No its not. 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: Classic ad hominem by you. No its not 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: I don't ignore it. It's not the topic. Yeah got it. You only want to attack gay marriage and not marriage in general. Not part of your agenda. 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: Most do. Let's not argue from the margins. Because you know that I am right and a fact. 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: Heterosexual marriage creates children. Same-day marriage does not. Not true. Just because a marriage is heterosexual does not mean it creates children. 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: A rank falsehood. I've done no such thing. yes you have 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: Classic ad hominem by you. Nope. I have a principled and reasoned disagreement with it. And your response to that disagreement is straight up ad hominem, with a dash of anti-mormon libel to end it. -Smac No you don't. Your cut and past post is filled with deception, and assumptions not based on facts to try and persuade other Mormons on this board to buy into your homophobic prejudice. Do you not even realize how your anti gay crusades are just reinforcing what most already believe about the Church?
smac97 Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 3 minutes ago, california boy said: Oh My Gosh, SMAC, you seem like a pretty stand-up guy. So for the life of me I cannot figure out how or why you expect us to ignore published statements from your compatriots. What? 3 minutes ago, california boy said: Would you really like me to list all the members and former members of the Church who have written books, blogs and podcasts starting with the CES letter and going from there? Let's believe all of them as well simply because they were members when they made most of their statements. Must be true huh. I don't know what you are referencing. 3 minutes ago, california boy said: Your cut and past posts only reinforce the unfair attacks you and other Mormons and the Church itself have done and continue to do on gays, and their families. I was asked a question. I answered with data and reasoning. And you are responding to that with ad hominem. 3 minutes ago, california boy said: Not surprised, just sick and tired of it. Feel free to address the data and reasoning. Ad hominem won't persuade me I'm wrong. 3 minutes ago, california boy said: Do you really think your posts are valid and necessary to gin up more prejudice? A loaded question. Not presented in good faith, I think. 3 minutes ago, california boy said: Are there not any members on this board that are willing to call you on your crap? I responded to a question with data and reasoning. You respond with ad hominem. 3 minutes ago, california boy said: You make me so glad I am no longer a member of that church. Ad hominem, and now a guilt trip. -Smac 1
california boy Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: What? I don't know what you are referencing. You have never heard of the CES letters written by your compatriot? 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: I was asked a question. I answered with data and reasoning. The question you were asked was "How does gay marriage damage heterosexual marriage?" Your tirade does not answer that question, you only used it as an opportunity to spew your anti gay propaganda. 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: And you are responding to that with ad hominem. No it's not 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: Feel free to address the data and reasoning. Ad hominem won't persuade me I'm wrong. A loaded question. Not presented in good faith, I think. It was a valid comment on your intent to use a question to gin up prejudice. 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: I responded to a question with data and reasoning. You respond with ad hominem. In your rush to use the opportunity to demonize gay marriage, you actually didn't answer her question. 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: Ad hominem, and now a guilt trip. -Smac But true.
smac97 Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 (edited) 15 minutes ago, california boy said: No its not. No its not Yes, it is. Quote Because you know that I am right and a fact. No, I don't think that. Ad hominem. Loaded questions. Guilt trips. And now you're presuming to tell me what I think. Quote Not true. Just because a marriage is heterosexual does not mean it creates children. Heterosexual marriage facilitates procreation. Same-sex marriage does not. Quote yes you have No. Quote No you don't. Your cut and past post is filled with deception, and assumptions not based on facts Ad hominem. Loaded questions. Guilt trips. Mind reading. And now rote, unreasoned, because-I-say-so assertion. Quote to try and persuade other Mormons on this board to buy into your homophobic prejudice. We've had this discussion before, hence the cut n paste. No need to reinvent the wheel. And I do not harbor prejudice against gays. I disagree with same-sex marriage. I think people should be able to Express and explain such views. A pity you can't say the same. Quote Do you not even realize how your anti gay crusades are just reinforcing what most already believe about the Church? I'm happy to have a reasoned discussion. But all you have is snipes and bullying and guilt trips. -Smac Edited February 17, 2020 by smac97 1
smac97 Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 1 minute ago, Calm said: This is off topic and very annoying. Okay. I'll withdraw. 1
carbon dioxide Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, california boy said: So sick of members of the Church and their hypocrisy attacking gay couples and their children, justifying their attacks in the name of God. Your attack on gay marriage does nothing but reinforces the belief in the public's mind that the Mormon Church is homophobic. Slow down sir. Simply not agreeing with something is not an attack. Simply having an argument against something is not an attack. The Church or its members are not protesting gay weddings. They are not protesting outside of the homes of gay people. They just don't agree with it. I don't agree with friends I have who drink beer. This is not an attack against them. It is their liver that has do deal with the damage. My liver does not have to process it. And can we PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do away with the overused word "homophobia or homophobic". In 99% of cases that this term is used, no actual irrational fear is present. Being against something, not liking something, ect does not constitute a true phobia. Edited February 17, 2020 by carbon dioxide 3
california boy Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 1 minute ago, smac97 said: Yes, it is. No it's not. 1 minute ago, smac97 said: Ad hominem. Loaded questions. Guilt trips. And now you're presuming to tell me what I think. I do 1 minute ago, smac97 said: Heterosexual marriage facilitates procreation. Same-day marriage does not. Procreation is still NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR A VALID MARRIAGE. 1 minute ago, smac97 said: No. Yes 1 minute ago, smac97 said: Ad hominem. Loaded questions. Guilt trips. Mind reading. And now rote, unreasoned, because-I-say-so assertion You use simple opinions and try to assert credibility simply because the person is gay. Is that science? 1 minute ago, smac97 said: We've had this discussion before, hence the cut n paste. No need to reinvent the wheel. And I do not harbor prejudice against gays. I disagree with same-sex marriage. I think people should be able to Express and explain such views. A pity you can't say the same. Oh please, no one believes that. Way too many attacks on gays and their families. 1 minute ago, smac97 said: I'm happy to have a reasoned discussion. But all you have is snipes and bullying and guilt trips. -Smac No, you want to spew up your normal cut and paste demonized propaganda while not acknowledging that most of what you say is also true of straight marriages.
california boy Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 15 minutes ago, Calm said: This is off topic and very annoying. I totally agree, but I am totally sick of SMAC's cut and pastes posts demonizing gay marriage. It is time I pushed back.
california boy Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 (edited) 36 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: Slow down sir. Simply not agreeing with something is not an attack. Simply having an argument against something is not an attack. The Church or its members are not protesting gay weddings. They are not protesting outside of the homes of gay people. They just don't agree with it. I don't agree with friends I have who drink beer. This is not an attack against them. It is their liver that has do deal with the damage. My liver does not have to process it. And can we PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do away with the overused word "homophobia or homophobic". In 99% of cases that this term is used, no actual irrational fear is present. Being against something, not liking something, ect does not constitute a true phobia. I am sick of SMAC's cut and paste posts designed to put gay marriage in the worse possible light by using opinions that he gives credibility to simply because the person is gay with absolutely no science to back up his statements. Does he give credibility to a CES letter because the author is a member of the Church? His making statements against gay couples that are no different than straight couples. He doesn't compare both types of marriages, he only tries to find the worst in gay marriages. Yeah I am angry and have had enough of his crap. I don't use the word homophobic. But it is all I can see when he does these tirades is an agenda (and they have been going on for years) against gays. Edited February 17, 2020 by california boy to clarify
Regor Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 Some of my best friends growing up were gay, then when I jointed the church I gravitated towards gay men, not because I was gay myself but because I was not big on macho men as friends so gay men made better friends. I pray for them and care for them. The sad thing is that they have all left the church. It has to be hard, coming to a church that teaches eternal families, when they know they can't reproduce in this life or the next. The one friend developed deep psychological conditions and the other died of drugs. It's a sad story.
Calm Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 24 minutes ago, california boy said: It is time I pushed back. You have been pushing back for years. Nothing is new.
california boy Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Calm said: You have been pushing back for years. Nothing is new. I have no problem with the Church's belief on gay marriage, and have stated that position repeatedly. I do have a big problem when members of the Church start demonizing gay marriages. I actually have responded only a handful of SMAC's posts since his tirade against me in June of 2018. I find his posts especially on this issue to be toxic. I usually just find it better to ignore his posts. But in this case, he takes a question from Katherine "How does gay marriage damage heterosexual marriage?" and instead of answering her question, turns that into an opportunity to use his cut and paste demonization of gay marriage. He didn't even want to compare statistics between gay and straight marriage and called such comparisons ad hominem. I know no one else will call him on this crap. I felt that after a year and a half of silence to his posts, it was time to speak up. I don't see any members calling him on his crap. Edited February 17, 2020 by california boy
Bernard Gui Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 (edited) 6 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I think including polygamy in the "sliding down the slope" metaphor is insulting to those who lived it at God's direction. Either polygamy is inherently immoral in its nature or it's not. I don’t agree that it is insulting or inherently immoral. I commend those who obeyed the commandment. It served a noble and important purpose....to quickly raise a faithful generation; however, it is clearly immoral (forbidden by God)when practiced without being commanded by God. Edited February 17, 2020 by Bernard Gui
smac97 Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 16 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Quote "God, I mean The Church, changed it’s mind again apparently." That is the substantial mischaracterization. Please feel free to put forward your interpretation, which I may or may not feel differently about. The doctrine of the Church is that God will sometimes authorize polygamy, and will prohibit it at other times. Nothing about this has "changed." 16 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I guess its your prerogative to call my perspective a mischaracterization. From my vantage point, its clearly a change of tactics. I don't know what that means. Thanks, -Smac 1
hope_for_things Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 13 minutes ago, smac97 said: The doctrine of the Church is that God will sometimes authorize polygamy, and will prohibit it at other times. Nothing about this has "changed." I don't know what that means. Thanks, -Smac I don't agree with your assessment at all, its a misreading of history in my eyes. The doctrine of the church clearly changed on the subject of polygamy. Many of the early leaders talked of it as absolutely necessary for the highest exaltation and this is canonized in D&C 132. This changed, pretty much every major "doctrine" has changed as I look at the earliest teachings and trace those over time. This is a historical reality that I understand some people, perhaps yourself, want to explain differently possibly because of a view that this diminishes the authoritative weight of statements from leaders. From my perspective this historical reality is actually a very positive thing because it helps us to be humble and to not trust that we have things right all the time, but to be continually seeking for more truth, questioning, learning and growing in a line upon line continuing restoration kind of way.
smac97 Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Quote The doctrine of the Church is that God will sometimes authorize polygamy, and will prohibit it at other times. Nothing about this has "changed." I don't agree with your assessment at all, its a misreading of history in my eyes. Well, let's see what you've got. 7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: The doctrine of the church clearly changed on the subject of polygamy. No, I don't think it has. Not substantively. The doctrine of the Church is that polygamy is authorized at some times, and not authorized at other times. 7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Many of the early leaders talked of it as absolutely necessary for the highest exaltation and this is canonized in D&C 132. Well, maybe. For some, "the new and everlasting covenant" is synonymous with "plural marriage." But I don't think that's right. See, e.g., these remarks by Elder Packer (quoting President Joseph Fielding Smith re: use of the phrase "new and everlasting covenant in D&C 132): Quote What is the new and everlasting covenant? I regret to say that there are some members of the Church who are misled and misinformed in regard to what the new and everlasting covenant really is. The new and everlasting covenant is the sum total of all gospel covenants and obligations, and I want to prove it. In the 66th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, verse 2, I read: "Verily I say unto you, blessed are you for receiving mine everlasting covenant, even the fulness of my gospel, sent forth unto the children of men, that they might have life and be made partakers of the glories which are to be revealed in the last days, as it was written by the prophets and apostles in days of old." More definitely stated is the definition of the new and everlasting covenant given to us in section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Now I am going to say before I read this that marriage is not the new and everlasting covenant. If there are any here that have that idea I want to say that right to them. Baptism is not the new and everlasting covenant. In section 22 of the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord says that baptism is "a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning." Marriage in the temple of the Lord for time and for eternity is "a" new and everlasting covenant. (Doctrine of Salvation, 1:156.) ... Now there is a clear-cut definition of the new and everlasting covenant. It is everything--the fulness of the gospel. So marriage properly performed, baptism, ordination to the priesthood, everything else--every contract, every obligation, every performance that pertains to the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise according to his law here given, is part of the new and everlasting covenant. (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:158) See also these remarks by Elder Bruce R. McConkie: Quote "The new and everlasting covenant" is the fulness of the gospel, and the gospel is the covenant of salvation that the Lord makes with men. It is new because it has been revealed anew in our day; it is everlasting because it has always been had by faithful people, not only on this earth but on all the earths inhabited by the children of our Father. (Brigham Young University, 6 November 1977) Elder D. Todd Christofferson (same link): Quote The scriptures speak of the new and everlasting covenant. The new and everlasting covenant is the gospel of Jesus Christ. In other words, the doctrines and commandments of the gospel constitute the substance of an everlasting covenant between God and man that is newly restored in each dispensation. If we were to state the new and everlasting covenant in one sentence it would be this: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). Jesus explained what it means to believe in Him: "Now this is the commandment [or in other words, this is the covenant]: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day" (3 Nephi 27:20). (Ensign, May 2009) Then-Elder Harold B. Lee (same link): Quote The plan of salvation was nothing more or less than a series of commandments. We call them principles and ordinances of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is called the new and everlasting covenant or the everlasting covenant—“new” because it applies to us and is new in this dispensation. ("The Fall of Man," Lecture Given to Seminary and Institute Teachers, June 23, 1954) More remarks by President Joseph Fielding Smith: Quote “The new and everlasting covenant is the fulness of the gospel. It is composed of ‘All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations’ that are sealed upon members of the Church by the Holy Spirit of promise, or the Holy Ghost, by the authority of the President of the Church who holds the keys. The President of the Church holds the keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood. He delegates authority to others and authorizes them to perform the sacred ordinances of the priesthood. “Marriage for eternity is a new and everlasting covenant. Baptism is also a new and everlasting covenant, and likewise ordination to the priesthood, and every other covenant is everlasting and a part of the new and everlasting covenant which embraces all things.” (Answers to Gospel Questions, 1:65.) This document also provides: "I have not revoked this law nor will I for it is everlasting and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof..." Again, for some, the reference to "this law" is synonymous with "plural marriage." But that seems problematic, or at least far from established. Consider these observations (written, I believe, by Brian C. Hales): Quote The question arises as to what "law" is being referred to. If the law is strictly plural marriage, then the 1886 "Revelation" may be interpreted to be a declaration that the practice of polygamy will never be suspended. This is the popular stance of most "Mormon Fundamentalists." However, on closer examination, it appears clear that the "law" mentioned in the 1886 "Revelation" is the same "law" which is referred to in section 132. This "law" is the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage which encompasses all eternal marriages, whether polygamous or monogamous. To say that the law is strictly plural marriage is unjustified by the revelation itself (section 132). Plural marriage is a part of the law (see verses 32 and 34). But the law is obviously not limited strictly to polygamous marriages. D&C 132:7 tells us the "conditions" of this "law." ... The conditions of this law involve proper authority when sealing an eternal marriage. There is no mention of the plurality of wives as a "condition" of that "law." Likewise, we recall that in D&C 132:19, the promise of "a continuation of seed forever and ever" is extended, not to men who practice plural marriage, but whenever a man marries a wife by proper authority in the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage... ... Again the emphasis is on authority, not the plurality of wives. So . . . yeah. Lots of room for interpretation here. If your point is that some early leaders construed D&C 132 as a universal mandate, I think we'd need to review your evidence for that. I think we may end up with a pastiche of scattered quotes, some from unevenly-reliable sources (such as the Journal of Discourses), during the early days of the Church (when leaders were not quite as adept as they are now at differentiating doctrine from personal opinion/conjecture), about an interpretation of how a doctrine should be applied. If that's where we end up, and if you are going to try to pass that off as a "change" in "doctrine," well, I guess we may end up agreeing to disagree. 7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: This changed, pretty much every major "doctrine" has changed as I look at the earliest teachings and trace those over time. I don't think that is an accurate characterization. God and His attributes? Well, we've built line upon line, we have refined and clarified and improved our understanding. But I think the substance remains unchanged. The divine sonship of Jesus Christ? That hasn't changed. The atonement of Jesus Christ? That hasn't changed. The priesthood being the power of God? That hasn't changed. The Book of Mormon being the translation of an ancient record kept by the descendants of ancient Hebrews to migrated to the Americas, which translation was made "by the gift and power of God"? None of this has changed. Temple work? Missionary work? Service to our fellow man? None of these has substantively changed. Meanwhile, back to my earlier statement: "The doctrine of the Church is that God will sometimes authorize polygamy, and will prohibit it at other times. Nothing about this has 'changed.'" 7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: This is a historical reality that I understand some people, perhaps yourself, want to explain differently possibly because of a view that this diminishes the authoritative weight of statements from leaders. Sorry, but I'm not inclined to take your unsubstantiated say-so about "historical reality" as the way of things. I've studied a lot too, you see. 7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: From my perspective Sage words, these. 7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: this historical reality is actually a very positive thing because it helps us to be humble I am fine with being humble without leveling accusations against the Church. 7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: and to not trust that we have things right all the time, I am fine with leaving room for improving and refining our understanding of the doctrines of the Restored Doctrine (which may well include correcting errors/misunderstandings by past leaders). I quite agree with the sentiment that we still have lots to learn. But that's a fairly different statement than "pretty much every major 'doctrine' has changed." 7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: but to be continually seeking for more truth, questioning, learning and growing in a line upon line continuing restoration kind of way. I quite agree with that. What I disagree with is the notion that "pretty much every major 'doctrine' has changed." Perhaps our disagreement is more semantics than substance. Thanks, -Smac 2
hope_for_things Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 31 minutes ago, smac97 said: Well, let's see what you've got. No, I don't think it has. Not substantively. The doctrine of the Church is that polygamy is authorized at some times, and not authorized at other times. Well, maybe. For some, "the new and everlasting covenant" is synonymous with "plural marriage." But I don't think that's right. See, e.g., these remarks by Elder Packer (quoting President Joseph Fielding Smith re: use of the phrase "new and everlasting covenant in D&C 132): See also these remarks by Elder Bruce R. McConkie: Elder D. Todd Christofferson (same link): Then-Elder Harold B. Lee (same link): More remarks by President Joseph Fielding Smith: This document also provides: "I have not revoked this law nor will I for it is everlasting and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof..." Again, for some, the reference to "this law" is synonymous with "plural marriage." But that seems problematic, or at least far from established. Consider these observations (written, I believe, by Brian C. Hales): So . . . yeah. Lots of room for interpretation here. If your point is that some early leaders construed D&C 132 as a universal mandate, I think we'd need to review your evidence for that. I think we may end up with a pastiche of scattered quotes, some from unevenly-reliable sources (such as the Journal of Discourses), during the early days of the Church (when leaders were not quite as adept as they are now at differentiating doctrine from personal opinion/conjecture), about an interpretation of how a doctrine should be applied. If that's where we end up, and if you are going to try to pass that off as a "change" in "doctrine," well, I guess we may end up agreeing to disagree. I don't think that is an accurate characterization. God and His attributes? Well, we've built line upon line, we have refined and clarified and improved our understanding. But I think the substance remains unchanged. The divine sonship of Jesus Christ? That hasn't changed. The atonement of Jesus Christ? That hasn't changed. The priesthood being the power of God? That hasn't changed. The Book of Mormon being the translation of an ancient record kept by the descendants of ancient Hebrews to migrated to the Americas, which translation was made "by the gift and power of God"? None of this has changed. Temple work? Missionary work? Service to our fellow man? None of these has substantively changed. Meanwhile, back to my earlier statement: "The doctrine of the Church is that God will sometimes authorize polygamy, and will prohibit it at other times. Nothing about this has 'changed.'" Sorry, but I'm not inclined to take your unsubstantiated say-so about "historical reality" as the way of things. I've studied a lot too, you see. Sage words, these. I am fine with being humble without leveling accusations against the Church. I am fine with leaving room for improving and refining our understanding of the doctrines of the Restored Doctrine (which may well include correcting errors/misunderstandings by past leaders). I quite agree with the sentiment that we still have lots to learn. But that's a fairly different statement than "pretty much every major 'doctrine' has changed." I quite agree with that. What I disagree with is the notion that "pretty much every major 'doctrine' has changed." Perhaps our disagreement is more semantics than substance. Thanks, -Smac You're interpreting history though a modern and correlated lens. Thats not how polygamy was originally understood or practiced. I can recommend some books by reputable historians that you could read to better understand this. But even the most well read historians (see Brian Hales as an example) are sometimes able to twist an interpretation of history to fit their theological sensibilities. This isn't unique to Mormonism either, we see this with Christian scholarship as well. I'm guessing that you are strongly planted in your opinions, so there is little I could do to convince you irrespective of the evidence. Best to just agree to disagree on this topic.
smac97 Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 (edited) 25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: You're interpreting history though a modern and correlated lens. Well, we all have our biases. Quote Thats not how polygamy was originally understood or practiced. I can recommend some books by reputable historians that you could read to better understand this. But even the most well read historians (see Brian Hales as an example) are sometimes able to twist an interpretation of history to fit their theological sensibilities. This applies to you too, right? Quote This isn't unique to Mormonism either, we see this with Christian scholarship as well. I'm guessing that you are strongly planted in your opinions, so there is little I could do to convince you irrespective of the evidence. Best to just agree to disagree on this topic. Well, I'm inviting you to present evidence and argument. I'm willing to listen. So far, all you've provided is your personal opinion. -Smac Edited February 17, 2020 by smac97 1
hope_for_things Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Well, we all have our biases. This applies to you too, right? Well, I'm inviting you to present evidence and argument. I'm willing to listen. So far, all you've provided is your personal opinion. -Smac Yes we all have our biases, and I'm likely incorrect on many of my perspectives. If there is one thing I've learned in the past few years is just how much there is to know out there. I'm not interested in converting you or anyone else through the argument, I've had multiple discussions like this on this message board and other places, and I don't think any significant progress was made.
Ahab Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 On 2/16/2020 at 6:08 PM, california boy said: Your attack on gay marriage does nothing but reinforces the belief in the public's mind that the Mormon Church is homophobic. We're not afraid of it. We just hate it. We want it gone and would prefer that it never existed except as a fleeting thought that nobody should ever pay any attention to other than to think that yes we should love everybody and okay we can consider people of our same sex to be sexually attractive but no we should never want to actually have sexual relations with someone of the same sex and the thought of actually doing that should simply be dismissed without dwelling upon it. You guys really need to stop the fear talk. It is not a fear. Just admit that most other people don't like it, even though you do.
Recommended Posts