Family proclamation founded on irrevocable doctrine: President Oaks

[the narrator]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

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. 

Yes, it's a very messy thing, and a good reason to not confuse the institutional church as something perfect and without error.

[pogi]

1 hour 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."

We have historically had counsel from Church leaders via an Oct 1982 letter that said oral sex is an unnatural, unholy, or impure practice and that one is unworthy of the temple for engaging in the practice, even within marriage.  After outrage from members being questioned about what they do in the privacy of their own bedroom between consensual married adults, they stopped asking that question.  So, what is the doctrine surrounding oral sex in marriage?  Where do we stand today?  Don't you think it is important to clarify these things so members can know if they are violating the LoC or not?  

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

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. 

 

I would consider laws and doctrines to be a little different when it comes to finding them in the scriptures. 

For example, if someone wanted to know what the law of consecration contained we could have them read D&C 42: 30-42.  If someone wanted to know what the Law of Moses contained we could send them to Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.   If someone wants to know what the ten commandments are, then they read Exodus 20.  The Law of tithing?  Malachi 3 and D&C 119.  The Lord's law of health?  D&C 89.

If someone comes to us and says, where can I go in the scriptures to learn what the LoC is, where would we send them?

That's what I mean by "explicitly taught". 

 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Fether said:

Oh really? Do you know if examples of this?

Normally yes, pretty sure Brigham Young said it among others. Brain fog flaring, when that settles down hopefully I will remember where they can be found. Will try FAIR right now as we usually post stuff like that even if my memory is nonfunctional at the moment on specifics. 

[MustardSeed]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

We have historically had counsel from Church leaders via an Oct 1982 letter that said oral sex is an unnatural, unholy, or impure practice and that one is unworthy of the temple for engaging in the practice, even within marriage.  After outrage from members being questioned about what they do in the privacy of their own bedroom between consensual married adults, they stopped asking that question.  So, what is the doctrine surrounding oral sex in marriage?  Where do we stand today?  Don't you think it is important to clarify these things so members can know if they are violating the LoC or not?  

Hmmm. 

Im not looking for further light or knowledge on this topic. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour 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). 

In other words, it was the cultural norm. Cultural norms do not = God's law.

Segregation was a cultural norm...until it wasn't.

It was a cultural norm to consider divorce or use of contraception as a sin...until it wasn't.

Cremation...until it wasn't.

This list goes on and on. Claiming that it was part of "collective knowledge" is totally inadequate in defining God's law.

Even in the temple the LoC is defined as no sxual relationship outside of marriage. Guess what, with SSM that definition doesn't condemn gay couples. Using For the Strength of Youth as the way the church defines God's law is also inadequate.  Unless they've changed it, the FtSoY also states only 1 earing is appropriate. It's not scripture even if it is the codification of behavioral expectations for Youth. 

[the narrator]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The Lord's law of health?  D&C 89.

But that is completely different from the WofW as practiced by the Church today.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Normally yes, pretty sure Brigham Young said it among others. Brain fog flaring, when that settles down hopefully I will remember where they can be found. Will try FAIR right now as we usually post stuff like that even if my memory is nonfunctional at the moment on specifics. 

Sorry I am just pointing you to the page.  My body has just informed me it is naptime, but wanted to put this up so I wouldn’t forget. If you can’t find anything that is specific enough, let me know. 
 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_polygamy/Requirement_for_exaltation

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Even in the temple the LoC is defined as no sxual relationship outside of marriage. Guess what, with SSM that definition doesn't condemn gay couples. 

That has been changed in the temple to exclude gay marriage. It's a relatively recent change, and obviously in response to the searches for loopholes that allow gay marriage. 

[mfbukowski]

58 minutes ago, Teancum said:

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

Not until one takes into account the context, the statements are routinely made, and the philosophical training of the speaker, and even then if and only if one finds or creates a better religious paradigm, framed on your own confirmed criteria.

I believe that one should never adopt a purpose for one's life based on the opinions of others, and one must try to evaluate the competency of the individual putting forth the paradigm which one is about to accept.

We do not believe that prophets are infallible, and basing one's purpose in life on an organization or an individual's opinion, when one disagrees,  is foolish.

On the other hand, so is throwing out the baby with the bathwater!

 

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Even in the temple the LoC is defined as no sxual relationship outside of marriage. Guess what, with SSM that definition doesn't condemn gay couples. Using For the Strength of Youth as the way the church defines God's law is also inadequate.  Unless they've changed it, the FtSoY also states only 1 earing is appropriate. It's not scripture even if it is the codification of behavioral expectations for Youth. 

 

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

That has been changed in the temple to exclude gay marriage. It's a relatively recent change, and obviously in response to the searches for loopholes that allow gay marriage. 

Yeah, I’ve noticed that too. Sad, and a bit ludicrous, that such lexical duplicity would make such a change necessary. As though prophets and apostles have not defined what the Lord’s law of marriage is. 

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, rongo said:

That has been changed in the temple to exclude gay marriage. It's a relatively recent change, and obviously in response to the searches for loopholes that allow gay marriage. 

Not the first time the covenant has been changed.  Won't be the last.

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yeah, I’ve noticed that too. Sad, and a bit ludicrous, that such lexical duplicity would make such a change necessary. As though prophets and apostles have not defined what the Lord’s law of marriage is. 

It has been changed before.  If they'd left it in the original many members would be in violation today.
It will change again.  People will be under a completely different covenant than their parents, grandparents, etc.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It has been changed before.

In this case, the change adds precision to the meaning, likely to avoid lexical duplicity occasioned by society’s redefinition of marriage. 

[T-Shirt]

1 hour 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? 

For what it is worth, the baptism interview for new converts has the following question:

Quote

 

You have been taught that membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints includes living gospel standards. What do you understand about the following standards? Are you willing to obey them?

a)The law of chastity, which prohibits any sexual relationship outside the bonds of a legal marriage between one man and one woman.

 

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

We have historically had counsel from Church leaders via an Oct 1982 letter that said oral sex is an unnatural, unholy, or impure practice and that one is unworthy of the temple for engaging in the practice, even within marriage.  After outrage from members being questioned about what they do in the privacy of their own bedroom between consensual married adults, they stopped asking that question.  So, what is the doctrine surrounding oral sex in marriage?  Where do we stand today?  Don't you think it is important to clarify these things so members can know if they are violating the LoC or not?  

Haha, good one! 

[T-Shirt]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

Not once in the narrative is there any claim of them being married-

Doesn't this count?:

Genesis 3:8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden bin the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

For what it is worth, the baptism interview for new converts has the following question:

 

The law of chastity is also in temple recommend interviews and in countless gospel discourses (such as President Oaks’s yesterday) periodicals and teaching manuals. 

[the narrator]

7 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Doesn't this count?:

Genesis 3:8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden bin the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.

No, because the Hebrew there simply means "woman," which is the name that Adam gives her in Gen 2:23.

Now, ya'll, don't get me wrong. I agree that the second creation narrative is partly an explanation of the natural order of things--that is, man has sex with woman and makes babies. There just isn't any "marriage" taking place.

Edited April 4, 2022 by the narrator

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, ttribe said:

So, males are born already predisposed to playing with cars and females are born already predisposed to playing with dolls?

This isn't a matter of some philosophy, it's the actual science.

One can read this either way

I presume you are saying, because I know your predispositions, that boys for example are not born with a predisposition to play with cars.

One could read it the other way around as well.

Either way it is "some philosophy".

[HappyJackWagon]

46 minutes ago, rongo said:

That has been changed in the temple to exclude gay marriage. It's a relatively recent change, and obviously in response to the searches for loopholes that allow gay marriage. 

it's funny that marriage is considered a "loophole"   

How is it phrased now? "legal marriage unless you're gay"  or something softer like "legal marriage between 1 man and 1 woman"

Edited April 4, 2022 by HappyJackWagon

[rongo]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

it's funny that marriage is considered a "loophole"   

How is it phrased now? "legal marriage unless you're gay"  or something softer like "legal marriage between 1 man and 1 woman"

"legally married according to God's law."

[HappyJackWagon]

33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Yeah, I’ve noticed that too. Sad, and a bit ludicrous, that such lexical duplicity would make such a change necessary. As though prophets and apostles have not defined what the Lord’s law of marriage is. 

Of course when prophets define, and then redefine "marriage" multiple times over the short lifetime of the church, it does bring the longevity of any current definition into question.

[Peacefully]

7 hours ago, kimpearson said:

I don't have the final answer but I can confidently testify that what the Church is teaching currently is wrong.  God and truth would never create the damage, hurt, broken lives and families that the current teachings create.  My human mind says maybe the other two levels in the Celestial kingdom are for gays and transgender individuals that live worthy lives of love, kindness and love of God.  Such individuals could have full membership and only not have a marriage performed in the temple.

 

I stay because only in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints do I find so many beliefs that ring true to me.  I will not allow beliefs that I see as false with no evidence of their truthfulness to keep me away from the truths I see plenty of evidence of their truthfulness.

Thank you! That is exactly where I am at. Another reason I stay is so the church doesn’t become an echo chamber. I think I can make a difference in small ways and help move us forward to being more inclusive of lgbtq people.  Also advocating for more leadership roles for women and continuing in my belief that women do not require men to preside over them in meetings and callings.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

"legally married according to God's law."

Thanks.

"according to God's law" as found ... where? D&C 132? I doubt it. Is there another place to find God's law on this topic, or is this the point Bluebell was making about vagaries without exact definitions or canonized scripture to back it?

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

For what it is worth, the baptism interview for new converts has the following question:

 

I'm glad it's in the baptismal interview.

And for what it's worth, I have no problem with not being able to point to the LoC in scriptures, but that's because I don't believe that any changes to our current interpretation of it in regards to SSM would be equal to the church declaring that Jesus Christ wasn't the Son of God (as has been stated on this thread).

If it did have such a belief, then not being able to find the LoC in the scriptures would be a huge red flag to me.