Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Family proclamation founded on irrevocable doctrine: President Oaks


Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, filovirus said:

God allowed it in the OT, he didn't with the people of Jacob in the BoM, and allowed it in early latter day church times. If that is your idea of mental gymnastics, well then, the world will throw you plenty of curve balls.

Show me I'm wrong. Plural marriage may have been seen as an abomination throughout the BoM. I'm not saying it wasn't seen that way. But we really don't have that insight unless you can show me otherwise. So I guess that's my challenge to you. Show me.

Show you what? I don't believe in any of these stories anymore, so it's akin to debating Star Wars vs. Star Trek. I was referring to your tortured reasoning assembled to explain away the conflicting verses of scripture pointed out by Teancum. You have to come up with these explanations for why something applied in one place and not another using a set of books prepared by different people across different ages. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the one that makes the most sense. In this case, people justifying their behaviors by claiming God said it was okay and not in others simply because we are only really dealing with people, not an actual Deity.

Edited by ttribe
Link to comment
31 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I know I've mentioned it elsewhere, but this also sounds like the reasoning often given for why God tolerated slavery throughout biblical history.

Well one would think that a God could over rule cultural things that are plain bad, like slavery.  But God did not seem interested in intervening on this one either.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think if consenting adults want to practice plural marriages more power to them.  I don't think God was involved ever and don't think Section 132 was given by God.  I do not think God ever commanded or required it.

So does that mean that Joseph, Brigham, et. al were fine with God regarding plural marriage?

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Show you what? I don't believe in any of these stories anymore, so it's akin to debating Star Wars vs. Star Trek. I was referring to your tortured reasoning assembled to explain away the conflicting verses of scripture pointed out by Teancum. You have to come up with these explanations for why something applied in one place and not another using a set of books prepared by different people across different ages. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the one that makes the most sense. In this case, people justifying their behaviors by claiming God said it was okay and not in others simply because we are only really dealing with people, not an actual Deity.

OK. But this is a site where we discuss things pertaining to scripture, and so I would only assume that using the scriptures as a guide would be OK. It is clear that our two understandings of the BoM are not similar.

For us to come to discuss better in the future, it might behoove us to understand each other better. I am a believing Latter Day Saint. I believe in God, the scriptures, and ongoing revelation. I know you have a PhD in some form of science (sorry, I don't remember exactly which field). Do you also believe in God? And if so, do you believe that he has revealed many of his words to prophets?

"your tortured reasoning" - No need to be testy

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Teancum said:

If you can get the blatant contradiction to work in your own mind more power to you. I cannot.

Context matters.  I never took you for a literalist.

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think if consenting adults want to practice plural marriages more power to them.  I don't think God was involved ever and don't think Section 132 was given by God.  I do not think God ever commanded or required it.

What about permitted?  IE, not sin.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, filovirus said:

So does that mean that Joseph, Brigham, et. al were fine with God regarding plural marriage?

When you make something a directive from God when it is not then now I do not think so.  I think JS used this as a revelation to justify his sexual lusts as well as expand his power.  Maybe Brigham really believed God was directing Joseph.  I do not know.  But I do not think God had anything to do with it.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well since I am skeptical that there is in interventionist revelation giving God then I would think that God permits a lot of things that are right and wrong.  

And you are correct. The prophet Joseph Smith taught:

“That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.”  Joseph Smith

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Teancum said:

When you make something a directive from God when it is not then now I do not think so.  I think JS used this as a revelation to justify his sexual lusts as well as expand his power.  Maybe Brigham really believed God was directing Joseph.  I do not know.  But I do not think God had anything to do with it.

Joseph Smith hated the practice of polygamy and struggled with it greatly. Brigham Young similarly rejected the practiced when he first heard of it.

This is very documented. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Lustful_motives 

--

At certain times in the history of the world, the Lord has commanded His people to practice plural marriage (Jacob 2:30). For example, plural marriage was practiced in Old Testament times by Abraham and Sarah (see Genesis 16:1–3; D&C 132:34–35, 37) and by their grandson Jacob (see D&C 132:37), and it was practiced for a time during the early days of the restored Church, beginning with the Prophet Joseph Smith (see D&C 132:32–33, 53).

Jacob 2:30

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.

Doctrine and Covenants 132:34–35, 37

34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.

37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

 

Edited by SwedishLDS
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

And you are correct. The prophet Joseph Smith taught:

“That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.”  Joseph Smith

..., he wrote to 20yo Nancy Rigdon in an effort to convince her to enter into a secret polygamous relationship with him.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, ttribe said:

..., he wrote to 20yo Nancy Rigdon in an effort to convince her to enter into a secret polygamous relationship with him.

Not so simple. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Polygamy_book/John_C._Bennett/Nancy_Rigdon#Nancy_Rigdon

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Yeah...sure...he hated it so much that he sent men away on missions just so he could get access to their wives.

This is not true. Anyway, for people reading this wanting more info on the matter there is endless information on FairLatterdaysaint; https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Polygamy_book

Anyway, this is kinda spiraling away from topic.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, SwedishLDS said:

It is part of a pattern that Joseph used to accumulate a number of young women into his circle of polygamous relationships. Very simple, actually.

14 minutes ago, SwedishLDS said:

This is not true. Anyway, for people reading this wanting more info on the matter there is endless information on FairLatterdaysaint; https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Polygamy_book

Anyway, this is kinda spiraling away from topic.

Well, I suggest reading Compton, for example. These instances are well documented.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

And you are correct. The prophet Joseph Smith taught:

“That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.”  Joseph Smith

Well I said permits not commands. I Think it is non sensical for theistic God to say something is an abomination and them later say hey its a OK.  In fact do it or I will send an angel with a flaming sword to cut of our head.

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

And you are correct. The prophet Joseph Smith taught:

“That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.”  Joseph Smith

I think I said it earlier in this thread, but this part of why I don't think Pres. Oaks is correct to imply that this can never change. As I see it, a God who can command genocide in the OT (I expect this is what the prophet was referring to when he talks about "utterly destroying"), tolerate slavery for most of human history, and command or tolerate racial policies around priesthood and temple ordinances, can also command (or tolerate) same sex marriage-like relationship if He should so choose. Where does the certainty that this one moral question seems immune to God's ability to tolerate morally questionable things among His people?

Link to comment
5 hours ago, teddyaware said:

here’s the problem with your analysis: 

34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.
35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it. (D&C 132)

From the point of view of believing Latter-Day Saints, that’s all the evidence we need. 

Very much agreed!!

We all need to attemd the temple more.

Nowadays the LOC is no sexual relations except with one to which you are legally and lawfully wed according to God's law.

Poof! Goes the alleged "issue".

Quote

Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it. (D&C 132)

"You gotta know when to hold 'em

Know when to fold 'em,

Know when to walk away, know when to run."    > Kenny Rogers, "The Gambler" - song   

I don't like these threads about the LOC.   Time to walk away.  ;)   I got all the evidence I need too.  ;)

There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealing's done.  ;)

That Oaks feller's shore a good lawyer.   If a law's not clear, you just clarify it.  :)

 

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Very much agreed!!

We all need to attemd the temple more.

Nowadays the LOC is no sexual relations except with one to which you are legally and lawfully wed according to God's law.

Poof! Goes the alleged "issue".

"You gotta know when to hold 'em

Know when to fold 'em,

Know when to walk away, know when to run."    > Kenny Rogers, "The Gambler" - song   

I don't like these threads about the LOC.   Time to walk away.  ;)   I got all the evidence I need too.  ;)

There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealing's done.  ;)

That Oaks feller's shore a good lawyer.   If a law's not clear, you just clarify it.  :)

 

 

 

Clever!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I think I said it earlier in this thread, but this part of why I don't think Pres. Oaks is correct to imply that this can never change. As I see it, a God who can command genocide in the OT (I expect this is what the prophet was referring to when he talks about "utterly destroying"), tolerate slavery for most of human history, and command or tolerate racial policies around priesthood and temple ordinances, can also command (or tolerate) same sex marriage-like relationship if He should so choose. Where does the certainty that this one moral question seems immune to God's ability to tolerate morally questionable things among His people?

No changes, just clarification of the semantics.  

Literalism has not place in religion when 98% is metphor anyway.   The only sure thing is spiritual confirmation- and we keep forgetting that "my brain told me" is all we have to go on except when there is an Intelligence beyond earthly men who can let you know where you go wrong on a topic anyway!

You have to listen and "know when to fold 'em"

Quote

 

Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

 

You might like this one too- maybe yes maybe no.  Something to think about anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo

 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, CV75 said:

I don’t think inclusion is a matter of reducing relatively long-term expectations (exaltation) for people who are not expecting in this life (relatively short-term) to make marriage covenants in the temple, but helping them wait upon the Lord. Elder Bednar’s recent talk touches upon that, I think. You alluded to checklist-type pressures (by whoever “we” are) on the youth that are not in line with prophetic counsel. To me, this is a form of the great and spacious building, as would be scorning and mocking people who for one reason or another are not heading for marriage in the temple in this life.

I’m an eternal optimist and also a realist. So when I see expectations lowered I’m always hopeful that eventually - including the next life - they will be raised again. I’m confident that if the church were to try to create a space for LGBT members by having lower standards, it would still offer a hope that LGBT could eventually qualify for exaltation if they renounce their sexuality, including in the next life. 
My point still remains, though. We shouldn’t expect to create a ‘lesser’ place for some group of members, even if just for this life,  and not have many other members outside that group also decide to inhabit that space. 
In other words, if we say ‘it’s fine for the gays to live lesser laws now and not go to the temple because they can change in the next life’ I guarantee you lots of our non-gay members will say ‘me too; I don’t need to live temple standards here; I’ll just change in the next life.’  

Link to comment
10 hours ago, california boy said:

I totally agree with you.  In the same vain I feel like when the Church actively campaigned and continues to tell gay couples that marriage is wrong for them, it sends a message that others may consider whether marriage is something they should do.  After all, if it is not necessary for gay couples, why is it important for them. It is completely opposite message that they should be sending    Definitely a mixed message  

Yep. Some of the strongest examples I point to my children for why they should marry are gay marriages. They’re truly inspiring. 
One of the tragedies from our vocal opposition to gay marriage is that we desperately need these allies. We are engaging in senseless and tragic friendly fire and will look back on these days with great sorrow. 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, teddyaware said:

And you are correct. The prophet Joseph Smith taught:

“That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.”  Joseph Smith

Let's take this quote in context.  This was from a letter from Joseph Smith to Sidney Rigdon's daughter, Nancy, in the spring of 1842.  He was trying to convince her to become another one of his young wives. To me it sounds much more like coercion rather than revelation.

Quinn (1994, p. 112) (quoting a letter Smith wrote to Nancy Rigdon after she had rejected his proposal of polygamous marriage); Ostling & Ostling (1999, p. 65).

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

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