Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Family proclamation founded on irrevocable doctrine: President Oaks


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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?

Ah, there's the thing, how do you discern? Extremes are easy, but many on here seem to believe what they want within what appears to be the accepted teachings of your church.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, the narrator said:

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.

We only know that no "soul" has died before Adam fell and introduced death into the world. A soul is the combination of spirit and body. Adam and Eve and the animals that existed at that time had souls made of both body and spirit. The fall of Adam initiated the process of death caused by separation of body and spirit. We do not know how long the earth existed before that time. Perhaps it was millions of years before Adam as the scientists suggest; and the geological records would indicate that there was life in the form of dinosaurs and human type beings during that time. It has been suggested that perhaps these were creatures without spirits(i.e. not souls) and only suffered a biological death and not the same kind of death(separation of spirit and body) that happened after the time of Adam. This is all speculation of course.
I do not agree that the fossils are from another planet. The evidence suggests otherwise. When it comes to what the prophets say about details of certain events of the past, I let them have their opinion on some things, be they right or wrong.
What is important are the basic saving doctrines that they teach and what we should be doing today to help us obtain eternal life.
 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

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. 

I don't know as much about the future life beyond the veil as you do, and don't see how repentance should be required for not being able to predict it exactly.  I realize that humans tend to have a wide array of kinds and types of points of view about nearly everything, but that doesn't really decide for me the nature of reality.  It is a major source of denominationalism -- the rampant tendency to divide into ever more diverse interest groups.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Orthodox Christian said:

Ah, there's the thing, how do you discern? Extremes are easy, but many on here seem to believe what they want within what appears to be the accepted teachings of your church.

Asking is probably the easiest way to discern. 

Many who have answered your question aren't even members of the church, or if they are technically members, they do not believe most of what the church teaches.  Some are atheists.  Obviously, their answers will often be less helpful if you are trying to figure out what our church actually teaches on the subject.  

It might be helpful, when you ask questions about our beliefs, to ask anyone who answers whether or not they are a practicing member so that you can know where they are coming from.  Some are not at all interested in helping you understand our teachings or beliefs; they want to use your questions as a way to express their disagreement with our beliefs. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This answers nothing. It's not a matter of the answer not being good enough.

Of course it is.  I understand that the answers are not satisfying to some.

Quote

There literally is no answer. "A gay lifestyle does not mesh with the restored Gospel." That's a statement. It's not an answer.

Those are my words and it is only part of the answer.

Quote

It doesn't explain WHY a gay married lifestyle can't mesh with the restored gospel.

You know perfectly well the answer to this, it has been given over and over again.  I understand that you and others are not happy with the answer.

Quote

And it doesn't say anything about what happens to those gay children God created.

You are speculating here, something the Church is very careful not to do, it only creates more problems.  God created all people and all are His children, however, we don't know if God created people to be gay or to be born blind or epileptic or any manner of other things.

Quote

Are they changed in the next life to no longer be gay?

We don't know.  The Church is not going to make up an answer.  To quote Elder Renland, "Reason cannot replace revelation.  Speculation will not lead to greater spiritual knowledge, but it can lead us to deception or divert our focus from what has been revealed... Demanding revelation from God is both arrogant and unproductive."

Quote

If not, do they have an eternal existence of loneliness? 

Clearly not.  Elder Oaks just spoke to this.  We do know, and it has been taught repeatedly, that if a gay person stays in the Church and remains faithful to the commandments, no blessing will be withheld from them.  He also explained that the Church does not promote living the requirements of the lesser kingdoms, that is not their purpose.  However, as he explained, if there are those who choose to live their mortal lives in a way that is incompatible with exaltation, as the Church understands it, they will still be blessed with glory, "all of which are more wonderful than we can comprehend."  It will be better than anything we can experience in mortality.  We understand through modern revelation that no one will be lonely.  They will be surrounded by and visited by loved ones.  We don't know exactly what this will look like as little has been revealed.  We cannot force revelation.  We are intended to live by faith and it is not the plan for us to know everything.

Quote

This is nowhere near clear.

What the Church teaches on the matter is very clear.  They do not have all the answers, but what is known is clear.

Quote

Again, if this is all the church has to offer, it really has NOTHING to offer at all.

Not true.  It offers the chance of exaltation to all of God's children.  For those who choose otherwise, it offers glory beyond comprehension.  That may not satisfy you, but it is actually a lot that is offered.

Quote

Much of this talk about lifestyle being incompatible with eternal, exalted life assumes some kind of sxual reproduction of spirits in a manner we think of in this life. Again, the church has no answer about what eternal life looks like beyond some vagaries yet seems so incredibly certain on this issue. 

You no longer believe in revelation, so I understand that this troubles you.  For the faithful Latter-day Saints, we trust that God has revealed sufficient for now and believe more will yet be revealed, but we have to be patient and faithful.  The leaders of the Church have stated that they pray regularly to know the Lord's will on these things.  They are not going to make up answers just to satisfy those demanding more answers.  We don't know how life is created in the eternities and I don't believe we will know this until the Lord comes, and maybe not even then.  But we do know that there is a divine pattern in father, mother and families.  This is where, we believe, the greatest blessings can be found.

Quote

When people hear cries of bigotry and homophobia it would do them well to consider if those cries have merit instead of getting defensive and defending at all costs.

It is not helpful to be insulting.  I am honestly trying to answer as best as I can.  I am trying hard to not be defensive.  It is statements like this that can provoke and arouse defensiveness in others.  I will try to avoid doing so.

Quote

All I want is for the church/leaders to recognize they don't have the answers to these things and since they don't have the answers they should stop condemning an entire population of God's children. IMO there will be a reckoning with God on this issue and the lack of humility may bring a harsh judgement. 

They have said, repeatedly, that we don't have all of the answers.  That does not equate to no answers.  Based on what has been revealed, many answers are given, unsatisfactory as they may be some.  I don't agree with you at all that they are, "condemning an entire population of God's children."  

I don't know you well, but it appears, by your statement, that even though you have lost your faith in the Church, you haven't lost your belief in God.  I am glad of that.

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

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.

Okay. I misread your earlier comment. Yes, at some point in time (I would say a couple decades short of two centuries--though I'm guessing you would argue millenia more), two persons were the first to go to the altar as Adam and Eve.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Asking is probably the easiest way to discern. 

Many who have answered your question aren't even members of the church, or if they are technically members, they do not believe most of what the church teaches.  Some are atheists.  Obviously, their answers will often be less helpful if you are trying to figure out what our church actually teaches on the subject.  

It might be helpful, when you ask questions about our beliefs, to ask anyone who answers whether or not they are a practicing member so that you can know where they are coming from.  Some are not at all interested in helping you understand our teachings or beliefs; they want to use your questions as a way to express their disagreement with our beliefs. 

Thanks Bluebell, that was really helpful.

Link to comment
5 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.”

The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessing offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.

'Do you think that we shall ever be admitted as a State into the Union without denying the principle of polygamy?' If we are not admitted until then, we shall never be admitted.

Opps!
Brigham and other 19th century leaders did call plural marriage the new and EVERLASTING covenant of marriage:
It is well known, however, to the congregation before me, that the Latter-day Saints have embraced the doctrine of a plurality of wives, as part of their religious faith. ... I think, if I am not mistaken, that the Constitution gives the privilege to all inhabitants of this country, of the free exercise of their religious notions, and the freedom of their faith, and the practice of it. Then if it can be proven ... that the Latter-day Saints have actually embraced, as a part and portion of their religion, the doctrine of a plurality of wives, it is constitutional. ... There will be many who will not hearken, there will be the foolish among the wise who will not receive the new and everlasting covenant [plural marriage] in its fullness, and they never will attain to their exaltation, they never will be counted worthy to hold the sceptre of power over a numerous progeny, that shall multiply themselves without end, like the sand upon the seashore.
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessing offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.

'Do you think that we shall ever be admitted as a State into the Union without denying the principle of polygamy?' If we are not admitted until then, we shall never be admitted.

Opps!
Brigham and other 19th century leaders did call plural marriage the new and EVERLASTING covenant of marriage:
It is well known, however, to the congregation before me, that the Latter-day Saints have embraced the doctrine of a plurality of wives, as part of their religious faith. ... I think, if I am not mistaken, that the Constitution gives the privilege to all inhabitants of this country, of the free exercise of their religious notions, and the freedom of their faith, and the practice of it. Then if it can be proven ... that the Latter-day Saints have actually embraced, as a part and portion of their religion, the doctrine of a plurality of wives, it is constitutional. ... There will be many who will not hearken, there will be the foolish among the wise who will not receive the new and everlasting covenant [plural marriage] in its fullness, and they never will attain to their exaltation, they never will be counted worthy to hold the sceptre of power over a numerous progeny, that shall multiply themselves without end, like the sand upon the seashore.

😲 So Teancum, dare I ask, are you LDS?

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

Was plural marriage an eternal concept, if so, why was stopped? If the priesthood ban came from God through the prophet, wasn't that an eternal concept, if so, same question. I am not trying to be contentious I just don't understand how edicts can be given, presumably by God, how they can change? And if it has happened before how can you be sure that it can't happen with ssm? 

"Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord." (D&C 56: 4)
Plural marriage is still an eternal concept for those who have practiced it in the past.
The Lord still has to deal with the agency of man and therefore can change things according to His will and what man needs at the time.
Of course God can revoke the doctrine of marriage only being between a man and woman if He wants. I think however we are safe in assuming that He never will do that. 
It would go against everything we have been taught regarding the eternal nature of marriage and the concept of eternal increase between a man and woman which could not happen  with same sex couples.

Link to comment
3 hours 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. 

So all 7.8 billion humans descend from two humans who you believe lived 6000 years ago?  Don't think that works well.  As for "some form of humans" what does that even mean?  Do you accept that there has been death going on for hundreds of millions of years on this planet?  That Home Sapiens, not just some form of humans-what type of humans we are-have been around for a few hundred thousand years? 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

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

Bernard is misleading you.  19th century LDS leaders called plural marriage the new and EVERLASTING covenant of marriage and that one must enter into it to be exalted.  They most certainly did not view it as a temporary thing.

Edited by Teancum
Link to comment
2 hours 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.

Love that concept of "primal religion."

I believe that in our view of religion we have elements of all previous faiths that have significantly helped mankind to move closer to developing peaceful, spiritual cultures.

We have liturgy and symbols of greater truth, we have social interaction between gods illustrating moral interaction and solving conflicts, we have the concept that worlds are created by Words and names, we encourage meditation in receiving personal "revelation", we have a God who personifies loving forgiveness, who is always ready to take on our trials, a concept of afterlife that encourages perfection as a goal, and yet assumes that we will need help in achieving it in an infinite future of incremental improvement, the idea that all of humanity will have equal abilities to achieve these ideals, and to me, perhaps most importantly, that we ARE the image of God, potentially the perfect ideal Human Being!

If that ain't "primal religion" ,I don't know what is!  ;)

 

 

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, Orthodox Christian said:

😲 So Teancum, dare I ask, are you LDS?

He has repeated stated that he has left the church.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
13 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

Was plural marriage an eternal concept, if so, why was stopped? If the priesthood ban came from God through the prophet, wasn't that an eternal concept, if so, same question. I am not trying to be contentious I just don't understand how edicts can be given, presumably by God, how they can change? And if it has happened before how can you be sure that it can't happen with ssm? 

We no longer practice Mosaic law, how do you account for that? ;)

Abraham Issac et al practiced polygamy, and then it got "turned off" as well

We have new scriptures like the Book of Mormon too, teaching new things.

Revelation is not finished and never will be! :)

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
1 hour ago, JAHS said:

We only know that no "soul" has died before Adam fell and introduced death into the world. A soul is the combination of spirit and body. Adam and Eve and the animals that existed at that time had souls made of both body and spirit. The fall of Adam initiated the process of death caused by separation of body and spirit. We do not know how long the earth existed before that time. Perhaps it was millions of years before Adam as the scientists suggest; and the geological records would indicate that there was life in the form of dinosaurs and human type beings during that time. It has been suggested that perhaps these were creatures without spirits(i.e. not souls) and only suffered a biological death and not the same kind of death(separation of spirit and body) that happened after the time of Adam. This is all speculation of course.
I do not agree that the fossils are from another planet. The evidence suggests otherwise. When it comes to what the prophets say about details of certain events of the past, I let them have their opinion on some things, be they right or wrong.
What is important are the basic saving doctrines that they teach and what we should be doing today to help us obtain eternal life.
 

CFR for bolded item above.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

This message board has many different types of posters.  Some believe that JS was a fraud and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is as well.  Some have a testimony that JS was a prophet of God and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christ's restored church on the earth.  Some believe that JS was a prophet but that later prophets went astray.  Some posters on this thread are atheists and don't even believe that God exists.

It would be confusing if you didn't get so many differing opinions on the matter.  It would be like asking a Jewish person, a Muslim, an Atheist, an Ex-protestant, a protestant, a Catholic, and a Hindu, who Christ was and why He died on the cross.   You'd get a lot of contradictory answers that question, just like you are getting to this one.

And many of the ones bolded above also vary in how they view revelation, Joseph Smith and his successors and even about God.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Orthodox Christian said:

😲 So Teancum, dare I ask, are you LDS?

I am LDS though I do not practice not believe anymore. But I will try to answer honestly and even from a LDS standpoint.  And I think Bernard's response was to simplistic as well as disingenuous.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, T-Shirt said:

Of course it is.  I understand that the answers are not satisfying to some.

Those are my words and it is only part of the answer.

You know perfectly well the answer to this, it has been given over and over again.  I understand that you and others are not happy with the answer.

No- I don't know the answer. Explain it.

You are speculating here, something the Church is very careful not to do, it only creates more problems.  God created all people and all are His children, however, we don't know if God created people to be gay or to be born blind or epileptic or any manner of other things.

I'm speculating by asking questions. The church is speculating by condemning an entire demographic of God's children based on a tiny amount of information it believes has been revealed.

We don't know.  The Church is not going to make up an answer.  To quote Elder Renland, "Reason cannot replace revelation.  Speculation will not lead to greater spiritual knowledge, but it can lead us to deception or divert our focus from what has been revealed... Demanding revelation from God is both arrogant and unproductive."

This comment by Elder Renland seems to be an attempt at justifying a lack of revelation. I would suggest that this issue is one of the most prominent social issues of our time and the inability of the leaders to receive revelation on the issue suggests that they are incapable of receiving revelation OR that God is unwilling to give revelation. It is hard for me to believe that a perfect, loving God would refuse to give revelation on an issue that harms so many of his children. So I can either believe God is the problem, or the church is. The two are not synonymous.

Clearly not.  Elder Oaks just spoke to this.  We do know, and it has been taught repeatedly, that if a gay person stays in the Church and remains faithful to the commandments, no blessing will be withheld from them

That vagary isn't an answer. HOW will a gay person receive all blessings? There is NO answer. According to the church a gay person must either remain alone in eternity OR they will be changed. Surely the church can come up with an answer on that? This is a major issue of our time. If they can't receive revelation on topics as important as this I'm wondering what value they bring to the table.

He also explained that the Church does not promote living the requirements of the lesser kingdoms, that is not their purpose.  However, as he explained, if there are those who choose to live their mortal lives in a way that is incompatible with exaltation, as the Church understands it, they will still be blessed with glory, "all of which are more wonderful than we can comprehend."  It will be better than anything we can experience in mortality.  We understand through modern revelation that no one will be lonely.  They will be surrounded by and visited by loved ones.  We don't know exactly what this will look like as little has been revealed.  We cannot force revelation.  We are intended to live by faith and it is not the plan for us to know everything.

Leaders can seek revelation. It would appear they just aren't able to receive revelation. One must ask why that is.

What the Church teaches on the matter is very clear.  They do not have all the answers, but what is known is clear.

If that is clarity I would question the value of religion.

Not true.  It offers the chance of exaltation to all of God's children.  For those who choose otherwise, it offers glory beyond comprehension.  That may not satisfy you, but it is actually a lot that is offered.

OK- so tell me what that life looks like. What is glory beyond comprehension that just isn't as good as exaltation? LGBTQ individuals will appear to be damned from receiving exaltation but you suggest they will receive glory beyond comprehension. Can you explain that? Can anyone explain that? And I mean a real answer about how and why, not the ubiquitous "because we said so" answer that is being parroted. 

You no longer believe in revelation, so I understand that this troubles you.  For the faithful Latter-day Saints, we trust that God has revealed sufficient for now and believe more will yet be revealed, but we have to be patient and faithful.  The leaders of the Church have stated that they pray regularly to know the Lord's will on these things.  They are not going to make up answers just to satisfy those demanding more answers.  We don't know how life is created in the eternities and I don't believe we will know this until the Lord comes, and maybe not even then.  But we do know that there is a divine pattern in father, mother and families.  This is where, we believe, the greatest blessings can be found.

And if you believe it is sufficient, I would suggest you only feel that way because it doesn't impact you as directly as it may impact others. You're telling me it's good enough even though the core questions haven't been answered. This tells me it's not important to you

It is not helpful to be insulting.  I am honestly trying to answer as best as I can.  I am trying hard to not be defensive.  It is statements like this that can provoke and arouse defensiveness in others.  I will try to avoid doing so.

When someone levels a criticism there are two ways the receiver can react. They can be defensive and offended or they could try to understand why someone may have leveled that criticism. They may even be able to find some level of truth to it. But a person has to be humble enough to accept the criticism as potentially true.

They have said, repeatedly, that we don't have all of the answers.  That does not equate to no answers.  Based on what has been revealed, many answers are given, unsatisfactory as they may be some.  I don't agree with you at all that they are, "condemning an entire population of God's children."  

"We don't have all the answers" is acknowledgement that they don't have the answers. If I ask someone a question and they acknowledge that they don't know 98% of the answer but then act like the 2% they do know is sufficient and answers the overall question I would suggest that 2% is a failing grade.

I don't know you well, but it appears, by your statement, that even though you have lost your faith in the Church, you haven't lost your belief in God.  I am glad of that.

"Because I said so" or "Because the leaders said so" isn't an adequate answer. IF leaders are going to persist in demonizing and judging a population by restricting their access to what is believed to be God's church and ordinances, then they should be able to explain why. They should be explain the LGBTQ place in the plan of salvation. "No soup for you!" isn't an adequate way to meet the religious needs of LGBTQ and the allies which are being driven away.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

He has repeated stated that he has left the church.

Wrong.  I have not left the church. I am still a member.  I just do not participate currently.  You can down vote my response that Bernard misled but it is the truth.  

Edited by Teancum
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And many of the ones bolded above also vary in how they view revelation, Joseph Smith and his successors and even about God.

Very true.  Some believe that JS was a prophet but erred in regards to polygamy.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Orthodox Christian said:

😲 So Teancum, dare I ask, are you LDS?

Also I was was a hobby apologist like many believers here may be. Totally devoted Latter Day Saint for most of my life.  I just got to to the point where the mental gyrations, at least for me, needed to defend the so many problematic issues the LDS Church truth claims have, let alone Christianity and religion in general have, that I could not do it anymore.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...