Family proclamation founded on irrevocable doctrine: President Oaks

[the narrator]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Who defined marriage from the beginning?

Good question. Who did define marriage from the beginning? And where?

[JLHPROF]

22 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Quote

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Is it impossible to believe that this has nothing to do with what our leaders teach and in my beliefs that homosexuality is explicitly wrong for doctrinal reasons already explained?

No, I don't think you do. Otherwise you would stop saying that people are wanting God to condone sin.

I have no idea what this question is asking.

If I understand you correctly you seem to be implying that the only reason we believe homosexual behavior is sinful is because that is what our leaders have taught.
You are also saying that we think people want sin condoned only because our leaders call it sin.

I am asking if you understand that some consider it sinful regardless of whatever leadership or Church teachings?  That there are very clear doctrines for God's plan that require no additional revelation to understand.
 

[rongo]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Perhaps so.  It would be interesting to ask, where could one find the LoC before the FtSoY existed?  

We have posters on here saying that any change in the interpretation of the LoC would be equal to the church stopping it's belief in Jesus Christ.  If that's true then it would mean that our current interpretation of the LoC is fundamental to the Gospel.  The gospel of Jesus Christ cannot exist without it.

Such a foundational and fundamental doctrine should exist somewhere other than a pamphlet, shouldn't it?  

 

I think we have always had it in the scriptures, in counsel from Church leaders, and in the collective knowledge --- but it's been only recently that everything is questioned and the need arose to "nail everything down." It's similar to the point that people make when they say "Jesus said nothing about homosexuality." He didn't have to --- it was universally understood by Jews and then later Christians that it was a sin. The "silence" in scripture isn't evidence of "an opening."

Until the recent onslaught and avalanche of gay activism and ally-ism in the Church (mirroring society at large), everyone would have been in agreement about whether or not this or that was against the law of chastity or not. Because of the attempts to poke holes wherever people think holes can be found, there is increasing wordsmithing in the temple definition, FtSoY, etc. Given all of this, I think the FtSoY treatment is comprehensive and extensive. The changed temple definition sealed off the "loophole" activists sought to justify gay marriage with (legally married, so not against the LoC). 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Orthodox Christian said:

To make God in our own image is a grave mistake.

All God's are made in our own image.  Gods are a human construct.  Your God is made in the image of a God you choose to believe in shaped by writings of people thousands of years ago who did not have the benefits of the knowledge we have today.  Your God comes out of the bronze age.  Many others believe in a God that is not your God and you rejet their.  In fact you reject all Gods but the one you like best. The one created by humans that best suits your image.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Again. It should be "His instructions on family ... according to human authorities."

You have no direct access to "His instructions"

Scripture is good enough for me.

4 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Good question. Who did define marriage from the beginning? And where?

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the dearth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Mark 10:5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

I don't see any other alternative version than male and female.  Good enough for me.

[the narrator]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

If I understand you correctly you seem to be implying that the only reason we believe homosexual behavior is sinful is because that is what our leaders have taught.

No, I'm saying that the appeals you are making are appeals to authorities and not to God Himself.

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You are also saying that we think people want sin condoned only because our leaders call it sin.

No, I am saying that you are incorrect in saying that "people want sin condoned." I have said that over and over again, and yet you still swing away at that straw man

 

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I am asking if you understand that some consider it sinful regardless of whatever leadership or Church teachings?  That there are very clear doctrines for God's plan that require no additional revelation to understand.

If is regardless of leadership or Church teachings, why do you immediately follow this question with an appeal to "doctrines"--aka teachings of persons or an organization?

 

[the narrator]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Scripture is good enough for me.

Well, at least you admit that you don't have access to God's instructions and instead appeal to imperfect contradictory texts by unknown persons in order to make absolute claims about reality. Cool.

[ttribe]

25 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

My counter-example would be slavery. Clearly, God condoned it with the law of Moses. I suppose we could try and argue that slavery (as practiced by ancient Israel, assuming we fully understand how it was practiced) was not a sin, but I find that a difficult argument to make. At some level, God condoned slavery (something I believe is universally a sin), God condoned racism (something else I believe is universally a sin), and God may very well be condoning Pres. Oaks's incorrect teachings until such time as He can change things. (I'm even inclined to believe that, if God could condone these past sinful practices, He can also condone same sex marriage and gender transitions, because neither of these seems worse that other things He has condoned).

In the end, I don't really know the answer. It seems overstating the case to say that God cannot do this particular thing (tolerate and even embrace LGBT+ members of the Church and their preferred lifestyles).

You know, with all these scriptural examples of God making exceptions to the rules of what otherwise is clearly 'sinful' behavior, it makes one wonder what God is really up to in all of this.

[the narrator]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the dearth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

I don't seen anything about Adam and Eve getting married, just cohabitating.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think we have always had it in the scriptures, in counsel from Church leaders, and in the collective knowledge --- but it's been only recently that everything is questioned and the need arose to "nail everything down." It's similar to the point that people make when they say "Jesus said nothing about homosexuality." He didn't have to --- it was universally understood by Jews and then later Christians that it was a sin. The "silence" in scripture isn't evidence of "an opening."

Until the recent onslaught and avalanche of gay activism and ally-ism in the Church (mirroring society at large), everyone would have been in agreement about whether or not this or that was against the law of chastity or not. Because of the attempts to poke holes wherever people think holes can be found, there is increasing wordsmithing in the temple definition, FtSoY, etc. Given all of this, I think the FtSoY treatment is comprehensive and extensive. The changed temple definition sealed off the "loophole" activists sought to justify gay marriage with (legally married, so not against the LoC). 

For other fundamental aspects of the gospel of Christ, we don't have to rely on implication, universally understood but never actually stated doctrines, and fighting the evils of social activism to find them.  

Why is the LoC different?

 

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, the narrator said:

No, I'm saying that the appeals you are making are appeals to authorities and not to God Himself.

If is regardless of leadership or Church teachings, why do you immediately follow this question with an appeal to "doctrines"--aka teachings of persons or an organization?

If we all have our own lights as to what God has to say on this (appeals to God Himself at our personal level; what we individually feel God has communicated to us), and the Church has had a united and consistent stand on this from the beginning (declared doctrine through the key-holders) ---

--- but, you dismiss what the Brethren say and have said collectively or individually on this as "teachings of persons or an organization" as not being "God Himself" . . .

What could the Brethren possibly say or do that would clear your bar for God speaking for Himself? Anything they say or do will, following your line of questioning with @JLHPROF, be "teachings of persons or an organization."

 

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I don't seen anything about Adam and Eve getting married, just cohabitating.

 that's funny.

God literally puts them together and you don't see a marriage.

10 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Well, at least you admit that you don't have access to God's instructions and instead appeal to imperfect contradictory texts by unknown persons in order to make absolute claims about reality. Cool.

Without scripture and revelation old and new how do you expect to know anything about God or his opinion on subjects?

13 minutes ago, the narrator said:

If is regardless of leadership or Church teachings, why do you immediately follow this question with an appeal to "doctrines"--aka teachings of persons or an organization?

I appeal to God's own words on issues.  Not the Church official teaching.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I stand by my statement.
If President Nelson were to claim a revelation that SSM was acceptable to the Lord I would reject such revelation (and probably his office with it).  It simply cannot come from God.
If it ever comes it won't be from God.

I guess we all have the proverbial straw that breaks our back and faith.

[Teancum]

51 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

If that is the case, then please clarify this:

 

Read the part "really wrong."  The priesthood ban was a pretty big issue.  McConkie, among others, who insist that THEY are the one who determine God's doctrine in these latter days, who, we are told, cannot lead us astray, led us astray apparently of 130 years or so on this issue.  Small thing, matter of policy, even Joseph Smith editigin his own revelation I can get my head around.  But not a major doctrinal issue and yes it was a doctrinal issue.  If they were so wrong on that it is not unreasonable to wonder what else they get wrong.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

The thing is though, and this is where Mormonism often drastically differs from much of Christian theism, is that Oaks isn't just making a mere religious claim, he's making a claim about actual reality. If I were to put on my DZ Phillips hat, I would say that the confusion that Oaks makes is that while he is primarily asserting this claim to make a moral/religious claim about homosexuality in mortality, within the context of Mormon super-material reality, he is also asserting something about the actual world that ends up silly and meaningless once it's taken literally.

This appeal to pre-mortal existence in order to oppose homosexuality is pretty much identical to appeals made to that narrative in order to support racist priesthood exclusion.

Yes, it is a problem I think, and a pervasive one in general in Christian "theology" where evolution and the nature of creation are actually still debated.

But I don't think Elder Oaks made that error; if he had said "The Chuch of Jesus Christ teaches...." it would have been clearer.

I suppose I should re-read the talk.

[Teancum]

43 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

D&C 132 explains the other - "he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else."

Yea that is a pretty convenient get out of jail free card.  😏

[rongo]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

For other fundamental aspects of the gospel of Christ, we don't have to rely on implication, universally understood but never actually stated doctrines, and fighting the evils of social activism to find them.  

Why is the LoC different?

It isn't. The only ones saying it is different, or treating it like it is different, are those agitating or wanting changes to it. 

For the overwhelming majority of active, believing members, it's simple (and always has been), and they are in accord with what the Church teaches and has taught about the Law of Chastity. Without having to refer to a de-loophole-ized legalistic "stated doctrine."

Sex (or anything like unto it) among people not in a man-woman marriage is a sin. This includes our thoughts ("committed adultery already in his heart" is in all three major books of scripture). This also includes arousing sexual thoughts and feelings in ourselves. 

There is sufficient in the scriptures and in what the Brethren have taught that this is understood by those who aren't trying to cross-examine the doctrine in order to poke holes in it. Even those who transgress it almost always understand that they are transgressing it --- the lines aren't in question. What people are trying to throw dust onto now is whether the guilt that is naturally felt because of the Holy Ghost and the light of Christ should be discouraged. 

Edited April 4, 2022 by rongo

[the narrator]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

What could the Brethren possibly say or do that would clear your bar for God speaking for Himself?

They couldn't say or do anything. That's not how it works. You know that.

[rongo]

Just now, the narrator said:

They couldn't say or do anything. That's not how it works. You know that.

What are you recommending or advocating then? 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

It isn't. The only ones saying it is different, or treating it like it is different, are those agitating or wanting changes to it. 

For the overwhelming majority of active, believing members, it's simple (and always has been), and they are in accord with what the Church teaches and has taught about the Law of Chastity. Without having to refer to a de-loophole-ized legalistic "stated doctrine."

Sex (or anything like unto it) among people not in a man-woman marriage is a sin. This includes our thoughts ("committed adultery already in his heart" is in all three major books of scripture). This also includes arousing sexual thoughts and feelings in ourselves. 

There is sufficient in the scriptures and in what the Brethren have taught that this is understood by those who aren't trying to cross-examine the doctrine in order to poke holes in it. Even those who transgress it almost always understand that they are transgressing it --- the lines aren't in question. What people are trying to throw dust onto now is whether they guilt that is naturally felt because of the Holy Ghost and the light of Christ should be discouraged. 

I don't think you are understanding what I'm asking.  I'll try to clarify.

• I asked, where can we go to read what the LoC is? 
• You said that the only place that we can go is a pamphlet.
• I stated that it's odd that such a fundamental doctrine of the gospel can only be found in a pamphlet.
• You replied that our current understanding of the LoC is implied in the scriptures but not ever explicitly taught anywhere.  It's a given.

That doesn't make sense to me.  What other fundamental doctrines of the gospel are only implied in the scriptures but never explicitly taught?  

Edited April 4, 2022 by bluebell

[the narrator]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 that's funny.

God literally puts them together and you don't see a marriage.

Marriage began as a social institution for men to make claims about who they get to have sex and children with. It didn't become a sacrament into well into the 2nd millennium AD.

And you need to get the order of operations right. God didn't just put Adam and Eve together, he first made Adam out of clay, and then after Adam decided he didn't want to have sex with any of the animals God made out of clay, God put Adam to sleep and and cut out his rib (maybe a penis bone?) and turned that into Eve. But even then they apparently weren't married or doing the dance. Just staring at each other and completely unaroused. It's not until they are kicked out of the Garden that they seem to just start having sex and kids. Not once in the narrative is there any claim of them being married--which makes sense, since it's not like they had a society yet in which their relationship needed to be legally delineated.

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Without scripture and revelation old and new how do you expect to know anything about God or his opinion on subjects?

That's a nice straw man. You have a whole shed full of them? Notice that I never dismissed scripture. I just don't uncritically accept them. They are simply one piece among many that believers ought to wrestle with as they seek to discern God's will. I certainly hope and pray that there are many teachings in the Bible that you reject.

25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I appeal to God's own words on issues.  Not the Church official teaching.

No, you are appealing to the words of humans that you assume speak for God. I am quite certain that you have never actually heard or seen a single actual word of God's. If you have, I would love to know specifically what those words were.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I don't think you are understanding what I'm asking.  I'll try to clarify.

• I asked, where can we go to read what the LoC is? 
• You said that the only place that we can go is a pamphlet.
• I stated that it's odd that such a fundamental doctrine of the gospel can only be found in a pamphlet.
• You replied that our current understanding of the LoC is implied in the scriptures but not ever explicitly taught anywhere.  It's a given.

That doesn't make sense to me.  What other fundamental doctrines of the gospel are only implied in the scriptures but never explicitly taught?  

Where is the atonement "explicitly taught?" You would list scripture passages, and GA statements, right? But there isn't a concise, comprehensive treatment of it except in resources like FtSoY, True to the Faith, Gospel Principles, etc. 

You are implying (or outright stating) that the LoC is somehow different from any other doctrines of the Church. Its scriptural support and reliance on GA statements is very similar as these other doctrines. 

I never said "the only place that we can go is a pamphlet." I pointed to it as probably the best, concise, comprehensive explanation of it. The same "pamphlets" or "small books" would also contain the best concise, comprehensive explanations of our other doctrines, but the actual doctrine is throughout the scriptures and in GA statements. 

 

[OGHoosier]

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Read the part "really wrong."  The priesthood ban was a pretty big issue.  McConkie, among others, who insist that THEY are the one who determine God's doctrine in these latter days, who, we are told, cannot lead us astray, led us astray apparently of 130 years or so on this issue.  Small thing, matter of policy, even Joseph Smith editigin his own revelation I can get my head around.  But not a major doctrinal issue and yes it was a doctrinal issue.  If they were so wrong on that it is not unreasonable to wonder what else they get wrong.

Yeah, by our lights it was pretty darn wrong. Wrong enough to delegitimize the entire paradigm? YMMV. 

Honestly at this point I think its a personal call. 

[the narrator]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

What are you recommending or advocating then? 

See Alma 32. 

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, the narrator said:

See Alma 32. 

How do you govern a church (with laws and commandments) if it's just a Wild West of everyone's Alma 32 personal revelation? I agree that it's of paramount importance that we have our own personal revelation, but the Brethren as key-holders set the laws and commandments (obviously --- and I don't think you dispute this). Most active, believing members are in accord with what the Brethren say and how they explain this issue. Those who sharply disagree (and don't want to leave the Church) are in a tough spot on this. If the Church were ever to do a 180 on this issue, a great many members' Alma 32 experience would be diametrically opposed to the change.