Family proclamation founded on irrevocable doctrine: President Oaks

[JAHS]

1 minute ago, the narrator said:

So you believe that humans did not exist on the planet until 6,000 years ago? I assume then that you also believe that Adam and Eve that they were placed in Missouri at that time? Or do you reject that part?

I guess for me that that the science of human evolution is so utterly convincing and explanatory to me (why else do I have back hair, toe nails, and the vast majority of my DNA being shared with other mammals [or even most non-mammalian life]?) that it makes much more sense to recognize all parts of the second Genesis Creation narrative (well, also the first) as a myth based on earlier creation myths that sought to explain our existence and social norms. To each their own, right?

Evidence suggests that some form of humans and animals have existed for millions of years. Adam and Eve were the first parents of all mortals that came after them. 

[the narrator]

2 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Evidence suggests that some form of humans and animals have existed for millions of years. Adam and Eve were the first parents of all mortals that came after them. 

Okay, so you reject the prophetic claim that death did not exist on the planet before the Fall? Or do you agree with Joseph Fielding Smith that there was no death on the planet and that all those forms of humans and animals were immortal before the Fall? What then of the fossil record? Do you agree with Joseph Fielding Smith that those fossils are from another planet, or do you reject his prophetic teaching on that as well? What about Missouri? Were Adam and Eve placed there? If so, I assume then that you believe that a global flood took Noah to the Middle East? Or do you reject the prophetic teachings about a global flood?

Perhaps you could help out by listing which prophetic teachings you accept and which you reject.

[Orthodox Christian]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

“For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none…For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.”

Thank you. That being said, why was polygamy instituted?

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Excellent post!

Many of the endless controversies that continue to drag on and on this board could finally come to resolution if it could only be understood that exceedingly difficult sacrificial tests of obedience lie at the very heart of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In the context of this discussion, those with same sex attraction who keep the law of chastity by faithfully emulating the awe inspiring example of the atoning Lord Jesus Christ,  by doing the Father’s will and not their own, will be rewarded with knowledge and divine powering great glory  far beyond human comprehension. Endless happiness is the he eternal reward for those who demonstrate such magnificent trust and faithfulness. And though the need for such great sacrifices of will may not be fully comprehended in this life, they will be perfectly understood, appreciated and greatly honored at the time of the final judgment.

The Savior himself said that for some strong sexual desires would have to be sacrificed on the alter of obedience in order to exit this fallen state of existence triumphantly. Until the ineluctable need for the law of sacrifice is accepted, many here will continue to stumble in the dark while mistakenly thinking they’re being kind and compassionate as they continue to excuse violations of the will of God?  And for as long as those who excuse sin remain unable to accept the absolute necessity for obedience to the holy law of sacrifice that requires the surrender of one’s individual will to the will of God, they will remain in turmoil without inner peace and joyful reconciliation  with God.

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. (Matthew 19)

And people wonder why religion is dangerous and ultimately poisons everything.

[the narrator]

9 minutes ago, Orthodox Christian said:

Thank you. That being said, why was polygamy instituted?

Because Joseph was no longer just interested in restoring primitive Christianity, but moved on to restoring primal religion (see Freemasonry), and since the Patriarchs were polygamists, he assumed that part had to be restored as well.

[longview]

9 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Because Joseph was no longer just interested in restoring primitive Christianity, but moved on to restoring primal religion (see Freemasonry), and since the Patriarchs were polygamists, he assumed that part had to be restored as well.

Incorrect.  Joseph did not assume.  He prayed for insight on ancient cultures including that of polygamy.  That was among those the Lord commanded to be "restored" as part of the "restitution of all things."

[the narrator]

4 minutes ago, longview said:

Incorrect.  Joseph did not assume.  He prayed for insight on ancient cultures including that of polygamy.  That was among those the Lord commanded to be "restored" as part of the "restitution of all things."

You say potato, I say potato.

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Your call. I personally find it useful to place the Church's position within a data-supported historical context: essentially, we are being called upon to discard or compromise our doctrines to accommodate a social construct/movement that is both culturally and temporally bound, one that has very little history and limited geographic reach and therefore no guaranteed future. (And in fact, I think we can see evidence that it is already beginning to self-deconstruct.)

Ok I read the article, NOW I get it, and for me, there's nothing there. That was the trouble I was having.

For years I have defended the idea that there was "no death before the fall" was a justifiable paradigm since the construct of human "death" with all its personal tragedy, angst, loss of loved ones, personal agony and all the fun stuff we attach to this biological event in which our bodies stop moving,  roll over and rot.

But on the other hand we believe that other creatures have stopped moving, rolled over and rotted forever.

Therefore of course it is ridiculous, it has been said here numerous times, that scriptures say that there was no death before the fall

So now the contention is that the word homosexuality did not exist before the 19th century, because there was no word or paradigm for it.  There was no homosexuality before the 19th century, but that way of thinking is now fine.  No word for it, therefore it doesn't exist.

Ok, fine. I get it. Same old argument!

Yawn.

There also were no platypuses before there was a word for them either.

And now it is said, apparently, that the paradigm is now inadequate, and losing steam.

Paradigms are constructed and deconstructed every day in every field.

Now I get your (plural) points!

"If that's all there is, my friends, then let's keep dancing" but no booze!

I love that song!

https://youtu.be/LCRZZC-DH7M

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 6, 2022 by mfbukowski

[longview]

3 minutes ago, the narrator said:

You say potato, I say potato.

You mean potahtoe?

[california boy]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Given how the relationship and its origin are described as being created spiritually before naturally upon the earth, the imagery of Eve being formed from Adam's rib indicates they were already united as man and wife, by design, for some time. The instructions, commandments and blessings given to Adam when he was alone were thus set upon Eve as well (as are children who are born in the covenant), and the confirmation of these once Eve was brought forth from Adam is the content of the marriage ordinance and vows, before and after the Fall. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with this relationship; it is a secondary or tertiary element of our own creation that we impose on our perception of the covenant.

Of course the root of this relationship is founded in the Atonement of Jesus Christ, who executed this atonement by coming to the earth as the Son of a married (in a manner of speaking, since it was through the covenant relationship between a Man and a woman) mother and Father. Het set the pattern in this way.

I am not getting how any of this relates to what I posted.  I don’t think anyone is saying that man/woman marriages aren’t PART of the plan.  

[Robert F. Smith]

On 4/3/2022 at 3:29 PM, Buckeye said:

My sense is that President Oaks has never been a proponent of the doctrine/policy dichotomy. So I don’t see that part of his address as anything groundbreaking, but rather a reemphasis that the church’s teaching of marriage being only make-female is not going to change under his watch. At least for me, I have always thought the acceptance of SSM will come after his service ends, so again nothing new there. 

On 4/3/2022 at 3:29 PM, Buckeye said:

What may be new is the context of framing the marriage discussion with the three degrees of glory. This may be a harbinger of a push by the church to teach that those in SSMs have a place in Gods kingdoms, just not the highest degree. I’m not sure how that gets implemented in practice, but I certainly support anything that would help to provide a place in the church for gay and lesbian members who choose to form families. Maybe something like allowing them to pray and serve in limited capacities while not being permitted in the temple. I’m not predicting anything, just hoping for some movement to make more space in our congregations for these wonderful saints. 

We always seem to get locked in to whatever status we have in this life, rather than effective temple work which influences most of what goes on beyond the veil.  Is there a secret doctrine that all SSMs are permanent, in this life and in the life to come?

On 4/3/2022 at 3:29 PM, Buckeye said:

Another thing that would be extremely helpful - but I’m not holding by breath - is a clear explanation of the eternal differences between genders. Is it just pregnancy and nursing? The POTF sets different expectations as to nurturing, presiding, providing and protecting, but those differences have been eroding under church policy changes since 1995 (a development I welcome). There will simply be no unity among the saints in understanding what the the eternal differences are until church leadership provides details. Every man and woman will apply their own belief and the doctrine will remain largely worthless apart from being the basis to reject SSM. 

Not sure what you mean here, but Lehi's Law of Opposites might be at play.  The notion that everything is one undifferentiated mass or plasma doesn't seem to comport with the natural universe, nor with the nature of God -- unless we accept that the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) will eventually eliminate even God.

[Orthodox Christian]

34 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Because Joseph was no longer just interested in restoring primitive Christianity, but moved on to restoring primal religion (see Freemasonry), and since the Patriarchs were polygamists, he assumed that part had to be restored as well.

He assumed? I thought it was by revelation.

[the narrator]

Just now, Orthodox Christian said:

He assumed? I thought it was by revelation.

IMO they go hand in hand, with revelation incorporating that which is brought to the table. (And I would add that for me, revelation isn't about revealing the past (or really revealing anything actual in particular), but rather about reinterpreting the past and elsewhere for present purposes--and mistakes can easily happen along the way, because human.)

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Perhaps you are unaware, but sex is biological and gender is a social construct. This issue is apparently lost on Elder Oaks, as well.

 

 

 

This is absolutely nonsense 

Why?  Because you say so?  Are you an expert on the topic?

[Robert F. Smith]

53 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Evidence suggests that some form of humans and animals have existed for millions of years. Adam and Eve were the first parents of all mortals that came after them. 

Correct, to a point.  It is true that humans have existed in some form for a million or so years (operating by the same DNA code as all other living things on Earth), but more recently  a couple of them designated as archetypal adam "man" and eve "mother of life," participated in a temple rite very familiar to us -- including symbolic and figurative acts which many modern participants take all too literally.  And they are not the first parents of all mortals since then.  When we perform those same rites and make those same covenants, that does not make any of us the parents of all mortals after us.  The biblical account of all that is a poetic, ritual text, not a historical narrative.

[ttribe]

11 minutes ago, Orthodox Christian said:

He assumed? I thought it was by revelation.

Joseph Smith claimed it was revelation. Whether it was actually a revealed practice from a divine being is still being debated.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Correct, to a point.  It is true that humans have existed in some form for a million or so years (operating by the same DNA code as all other living things on Earth), but more recently  a couple of them designated as archetypal adam "man" and eve "mother of life," participated in a temple rite very familiar to us -- including symbolic and figurative acts which many modern participants take all too literally.  And they are not the first parents of all mortals since then.  When we perform those same rites and make those same covenants, that does not make any of us the parents of all mortals after us.  The biblical account of all that is a poetic, ritual text, not a historical narrative.

Tell that to Joseph Fielding Smith.

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, Orthodox Christian said:

He assumed? I thought it was by revelation.

He was working on translating the old testament and asked the Lord how he justifed his prophets being polygamists.
He said he received revelation(s) answering the questions.  Most revelations came in answer to questions.

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Joseph Smith claimed it was revelation. Whether it was actually a revealed practice from a divine being is still being debated.

By some, not by all.

[the narrator]

11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

but more recently  a couple of them designated as archetypal adam "man" and eve "mother of life," participated in a temple rite very familiar to us

Why not have that account also be one that is "a poetic, ritual [myth], not a historical narrative"?

I think you and I are quite capable of falling without needing someone else to fall before us, and within the temple context, it seems rather easy to argue that Adam is primarily an archetype for myself without there needing to be some actual historical Adam. Seems rather odd to say that every element of the Eden narrative can be figurative except the two humans.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 4/3/2022 at 2:28 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

He just said it in Sunday PM session. He affirmed the proclamation is not just “changeable policy.”

I think this needs to be re-emphasized from time to time. I welcome President Oaks’s affirmation. 

A couple of things worry me about that:  (1) Extended families get short shrift ("Extended families should lend support when needed"), when they used to be of prime importance; what pray tell will replace that significant but now lost form of the family?  (2) If families are indeed of such importance, why are they so often left dangling with two parents both struggling to deal with insoluble contemporary demands?  Why are young people left at the mercy of too expensive education and consequent debt, lack of adequate resources to purchase a home or rent an apartment?  The Proclamation on the Family might as well be  bravely making noise in empty space, echoing in a vacuum, when it should be backed by solid, substantive action.  Talk is cheap.

Fact is we are faced with the lowest fertility rates in history, the highest student debt, and the greatest percent of people living alone in our history.  Family?  What family?  Will there even be any families?

[Buckeye]

32 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We always seem to get locked in to whatever status we have in this life, rather than effective temple work which influences most of what goes on beyond the veil.  Is there a secret doctrine that all SSMs are permanent, in this life and in the life to come?

Not sure what you mean here, but Lehi's Law of Opposites might be at play.  The notion that everything is one undifferentiated mass or plasma doesn't seem to comport with the natural universe, nor with the nature of God -- unless we accept that the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) will eventually eliminate even God.

My support for SSM doesn't come from any secret doctrine (I'm just an ordinary member) or from any certainty that sexual orientation cannot change. I'm open to changes, but those must come from those who currently experience SS attraction, not from myself or others who do not. If all my friends and cousins that are LGBT were to come to me and say, "turns out we were wrong and could change," then I'd repent too. But I just haven't seen that. What I haven seen - and what I strongly believe will not change - is that SS marriages are fundamentally good. They produce good fruit for the couple, the children, and society at large. I've see that fruit and do not believe it will change. What is fundamentally good here will remain fundamentally good in the hereafter. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Orthodox Christian said:

Thank you. That being said, why was polygamy instituted?

Most people's answer to this question will depend entirely on their beliefs about the church and Joseph Smith.  Are you looking for the church's views on it, or non-believer views on it?

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Tell that to Joseph Fielding Smith.

I think that members would benefit greatly from being taught how varied (and contradictory) many members of the quorum of the 12 and apostles beliefs have been on this topic over the many decades it's been discussed.  It's a fascinating study in the non-consensus among church leadership on some issues.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Why not have that account also be one that is "a poetic, ritual [myth], not a historical narrative"?

Well, yes.  That is myth-ritualism, so dear to the heart of High Nibley.  That was the nature of Enuma elish, and of all the great mystery religions.

3 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I think you and I are quite capable of falling without needing someone else to fall before us, and within the temple context, it seems rather easy to argue that Adam is primarily an archetype for myself without there needing to be some actual historical Adam. Seems rather odd to say that every element of the Eden narrative can be figurative except the two humans.

Not odd at all:  Thousands of us play those roles repeatedly, and in some temples they are done live.  Those who play the roles are not actually the characters they play -- they are merely acting as such.

[Orthodox Christian]

25 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Joseph Smith claimed it was revelation. Whether it was actually a revealed practice from a divine being is still being debated.

So, Joseph Smith also claimed he was a prophet, or maybe it was claimed for him, not sure,  but is that being also being debated? That claim, correct me if I'm wrong was also by revelation. 

What I find confusing here is that there are so many differing opinions seemingly about JS and his revelations. 🤯