Jump to content

Family proclamation founded on irrevocable doctrine: President Oaks


Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, the narrator said:

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.

The belief that Adam and Eve were married for Latter-day Saints comes from modern revelation, not scripture.  Specifically, it's taught in the History of the Church, volume 2.  Unfortunately, I can't seem to find that anywhere online so we have to take someone else's word for it.

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, the narrator said:

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

The Hebrew word also means, "wife" and is determined by context.  The spelling in Genesis 3:8 (wə·’iš·tōw),  would indicate, "his wife"

Link to comment
6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The old "my God wouldn't do that" trope.  Making God in our image.
 

Please explain the God you believe in.  Please explain His characteristics that make Him God.

25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy. (explain how the Church's current teachings toward queer members brings joy into their lives)

32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.  (explain how the Church's current teachings toward queer members brings freedom to their lives)

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.  (explain in detail the good fruit that comes from the Church's current teachings toward queer members in the live of those members)

2 And that I am the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world;  (explain how the Church's current teachings toward queer members brings light into their lives)

21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated. (explain what blessings come into the lives of queer members from the Church's current teachings toward queer members)

5 And faith, hope, charity and love, with an eye single to the glory of God, qualify him for the work.  (explain how the Church's current teachings toward queer members brings faith, hope, charity and love with an eye single to the glory of God into their lives)

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

While part of me hopes you are right I don’t find this train of reasoning convincing. The idea that God would not create damage, hurt, broken lives, and broken families seems to ignore all the other things God allows. Some people are born psychopaths and are dangerous to everyone around them. Some are born with or early on develop unsatisfiable sexual desires or desires that are inherently predatory. It seems the Light of Christ missed a few people. Some are born to face intense and ongoing agony for most of their life. Many are physically, mentally, and emotionally crippled. Many are born into slavery with no real hope of escape or a better life and never get the opportunity to be raised by a family or form their own. I have a hard time buying that a God that is okay with all of that will arbitrarily declare that the pain of denied companionship in this life is a line in the sand. I believe God is just. I believe God loves us. I have a harder time believing that God is kind. The response is that the gospel of Jesus Christ will fix it. Usually though that repair does not show up in mortality.

 

So you are seriously equating  the damage done by a teaching supposedly from God with the damage that happens in life from so many other causes?  Name some other current teachings of the Gospel that cause the same damage to individuals and families?

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

That could be the case, except as I already explained there are solid doctrinal reasons why God wouldn't allow homosexuality.
Unless his instructions on family and his plan of salvation in scripture are also wrong.

Give me your doctrine on why God won't allow homosexuality.  How does homosexuality defeat God's plan?  Remember God created 90% of His children as heterosexual, cisgender individuals.  God knew that out of this 90% enough would desire families that His spirit children would have plenty of opportunity to be born on this earth.  Do you believe that accepting committed homosexual relationships will cause all those heterosexual cisgender individuals to stop forming families?  If 10% of His children are born queer, I am pretty sure He took that into account.  Do homosexual relationships cause the destruction of society?  Please tell me the harm a committed gay relationship causes.  How would accepting gay relationships harm the gospel?  God doesn't have enough room in the Church to allow two kinds of relationships?  Or do you think the acceptance of gay relationships as being righteous would cause all those members of the Church who married in the temple to renounce their marriages?  If so, why would they do that?  Do you believe accepting gay marriages invalidates straight marriages?  Please explain to me what would have to change in current church teachings about heterosexual marriages if gay marriages were accepted as righteous?  Please share with me your thoughts on why God could never consider a gay marriage as something good?  Maybe you are saying the only real reason God has marriage is for the creation of children and not the relationship between two people (I guess that would explain your support of polygamy).

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What I sought to convey with this comparison is that the restored Church’s doctrine pertaining to marriage being between a man and a woman is so integral to the doctrinal structure of the Church that to renounce it would amount to  such a drastic alteration as to destroy the Church itself. It would no longer be the Church of Jesus Christ. For an explanation of the integral part this doctrine plays, please see the post I just addressed to Bluebell, wherein I gave my transcription of a portion of President Oaks’s talk. 
 

I wanted to convey to the inquiring “Orthodox Christian” that a revelation embracing same-sex marriage is altogether outside the realm of possibility. Such a change would be far more likely — infinitely more likely — if we were not a Church governed by Jesus Christ through revelation as we profess, but a church run strictly by fallible, mortal men and women. 

Please give it a try again to explain how accepting gay marriage would destroy the doctrine of marriage between a man and a woman.  What current teachings about marriage between a man and a woman would have to change?  Why would God never allow gay marriage?  How would accepting gay marriage destroy the Church?  You just saying it would destroy the Church is not evidence or reasoned thought?  I can see nothing would have to change other than leaders having to admit they were wrong.  Is that what would destroy the Church, the issue that leaders would be wrong?

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, rongo said:

"legally married according to God's law."

How does this work with civil marriages?  Sincere question because I've wondered about this before. 

For example, if an atheist couple goes to the courthouse and gets married by the justice of the peace, are they "married according to God's law" because they are male and female, or is there more to be married according to God's law than just the sex of the participants?  What about if two theistic satanists (I had to look that one up to make sure those were the ones who actually believes satan exists and is worthy of worship :bad:) got married civilly?  Are they still married according to God's law?

Is "married according to God's law" just a fancy way to say heterosexual marriage, or does it mean something more?

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

So you are seriously equating  the damage done by a teaching supposedly from God with the damage that happens in life from so many other causes?  Name some other current teachings of the Gospel that cause the same damage to individuals and families?

When I got married, my parents waited outside the temple for me.  Instead of having my father serve as a witness by the altar, it was my best friend.  My parents had known for years that a temple marriage was in my future, so they were pretty cool about it.  Other part-member families have experienced much more hurt because of it.

I had a mission companion who was a convert.  The only letters he received were from former classmates at Benimerito.  His family had cut him off completely when he chose to serve a mission. 

This seems like a weird measuring stick to use.  Causing offense or dividing families can happen over ANY issue, inside or outside of the Church.  Because it happens on this issue tells us exactly nothing about its divine provenance.   You've got much stronger arguments in your arsenal than this one.

 

 

 

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How does this work with civil marriages?  Sincere question because I've wondered about this before. 

For example, if an atheist couple goes to the courthouse and gets married by the justice of the peace, are they "married according to God's law" because they are male and female, or is there more to be married according to God's law than just the sex of the participants?  What about if two theistic satanists (I had to look that one up to make sure those were the ones who actually believes satan exists and is worthy of worship :bad:) got married civilly?  Are they still married according to God's law?

Is "married according to God's law" just a fancy way to say heterosexual marriage, or does it mean something more?


Maybe if they quit altering it to cover all the bases and keep everyone happy we wouldn't have these issues.

Abraham Lincoln quote: You can please some of the people some of the...

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:


Maybe if they quit altering it to cover all the bases and keep everyone happy we wouldn't have these issues.

Abraham Lincoln quote: You can please some of the people some of the...

Altering marriage, as in civil marriage shouldn't exist?  I'm not sure I'm understanding your meaning right.

Link to comment

Of the twelve pages that have gone on I think I can summarize for those that don't want to wade through all of it. :D

Position 1: Prophets have declared that heterosexual unions are the only legitimate unions recognized as appropriate by God. Deal with it.
Position 2: The (so-called*) prophets are wrong just as they have been sometimes before. Deal with it.

I recall a time when the Church was soundly criticized for its opposition to a cultural and civil redefinition of marriage. Almost as if it was known that there would be discussions like this...


* Some of the interlocutors deny any kind of prophetic mantle. Others do not necessarily reject them whole cloth.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:


Maybe if they quit altering it to cover all the bases and keep everyone happy we wouldn't have these issues.

Abraham Lincoln quote: You can please some of the people some of the...

Come now, you know you want them to bring back polygamy so you really don't want them to stop, now do you?

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Come now, you know you want them to bring back polygamy so you really don't want them to stop, now do you?

Well, the original allowed for polygamy.
But no, I have enough problems without being expected to have a second wife.

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Altering marriage, as in civil marriage shouldn't exist?  I'm not sure I'm understanding your meaning right.

Well, they removed the priesthood requirement so that spouses of non-members could receive endowments.
They removed the wife or wives part to remove the polygamous past.
They combined the male/female covenant into one but that removed the husband/wife requirement.
They focused in on the legal part but that made SSM possible when it became legal.
And now they're tweaking it again so it can't include SSM.

Quit messing with eternal covenants established before the foundation of the world so that all can be saved on the same principles.

Link to comment

I respect those that leave because the Church won't accept gay marriage.  They are following their beliefs, at least.  They won't be the first people to leave the Church because it wouldn't change to fit their desires.

God loves all His children.  He loves them so much that He wants them to be like Him.  He explicitly tells them what they need to do.  And each get unique challenges to help them grow and become humble.

So, if anyone believes the Church us true but isn't happy with this doctrine, it is a great opportunity to humble yourself and accept God's Will.

Satan divides and pushes people to find reasons to reject God's will.  It helps people find justifications to leave.  Obedience is the gateway to the Celestial Kingdom.

"But what about the gay child of so and so? How can God do this if it is against His Laws?"  The list of extremely difficult challenges that people face in this life is huge, and this is just one of them.  And Satan is very very good at leading people astray.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, SkyRock said:

I respect those that leave because the Church won't accept gay marriage.  They are following their beliefs, at least.  They won't be the first people to leave the Church because it wouldn't change to fit their desires.

God loves all His children.  He loves them so much that He wants them to be like Him.  He explicitly tells them what they need to do.  And each get unique challenges to help them grow and become humble.

So, if anyone believes the Church us true but isn't happy with this doctrine, it is a great opportunity to humble yourself and accept God's Will.

Satan divides and pushes people to find reasons to reject God's will.  It helps people find justifications to leave.  Obedience is the gateway to the Celestial Kingdom.

"But what about the gay child of so and so? How can God do this if it is against His Laws?"  The list of extremely difficult challenges that people face in this life is huge, and this is just one of them.  And Satan is very very good at leading people astray.

pmwcgrAfg

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, they removed the priesthood requirement so that spouses of non-members could receive endowments.
They removed the wife or wives part to remove the polygamous past.
They combined the male/female covenant into one but that removed the husband/wife requirement.
They focused in on the legal part but that made SSM possible when it became legal.
And now they're tweaking it again so it can't include SSM.

Quit messing with eternal covenants established before the foundation of the world so that all can be saved on the same principles.

So a civil marriage can never be considered being married according to God's law?  If I'm understanding you right, then that makes sense to me.  But it also means that someone can be married not according to God's law and still not be breaking the LoC.  

So marriage according to God's law isn't really relevant to the SSM issue, unless someone was attempting to argue that SSM should be allowed in the temple (and I'm sure some do argue that, but I'm not sure if I've seen it on this thread or not).

Link to comment
2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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

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.

And there is a problem with that?

News Flash! We have an open canon!

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So a civil marriage can never be considered being married according to God's law?  If I'm understanding you right, then that makes sense to me.  But it also means that someone can be married not according to God's law and still not be breaking the LoC.  

So marriage according to God's law isn't really relevant to the SSM issue, unless someone was attempting to argue that SSM should be allowed in the temple (and I'm sure some do argue that, but I'm not sure if I've seen it on this thread or not).

So what would happen if someone in a SSM would want to receive their endowment? How would they repent in order to make that happen? Would it mean breaking up a family unit? Would God support that? What if that SS couple had adopted children? I'm just trying to understand your stance that civil SSM is not against the LoC.

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Of the twelve pages that have gone on I think I can summarize for those that don't want to wade through all of it. :D

Position 1: Prophets have declared that heterosexual unions are the only legitimate unions recognized as appropriate by God. Deal with it.
Position 2: The (so-called*) prophets are wrong just as they have been sometimes before. Deal with it.

I recall a time when the Church was soundly criticized for its opposition to a cultural and civil redefinition of marriage. Almost as if it was known that there would be discussions like this...


* Some of the interlocutors deny any kind of prophetic mantle. Others do not necessarily reject them whole cloth.

Position 3:  Continuing revelation.

^ Maybe that overlaps with #2.  Or maybe it's just a less cynical version of #2.  But it's a fair position for people to hold.

 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I think maybe you've gone a bit too far with this statement. Would you consider reconsidering it? I have been married to a wonderfully Godly woman for 52 years now. We were not married in a temple. We were married in my sister's living room with my father, a Brethren and Baptist ordained minister officiating.  Our marriage and relationship was consecrated before God with covenants to both Him and each other. He has richly blessed our lives.

We have never had any children. My wife had tumors, probably already growing inside her when we were married. So what did we do? We adopted a severely disabled baby who has been with us ever since. We care for him the best we can even though he is in his forties. There is nothing empty about either the love we share with him or he with us. So please don't consider our marriage or our relationship empty, especially before a just and merciful God. Neither seed nor a temple make a marriage blessed by God. The absence of either does not make a marriage empty before God. I implore you to reconsider your comment.

You are the exception that proves the rule. Man and woman provide children. Never in the history of Earth have a XX and XX couple provided a child, nor an XY and XY couple. But it is natural that XX and XY have children.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, filovirus said:

So what would happen if someone in a SSM would want to receive their endowment? How would they repent in order to make that happen? Would it mean breaking up a family unit? Would God support that? What if that SS couple had adopted children? I'm just trying to understand your stance that civil SSM is not against the LoC.

I didn't say that it wasn't against the LoC.  I said that you can't say that SSM is against the LoC because it's not marriage according to the Laws of God.  You can argue that SSM breaks the LoC, you just have to find a different reason as to why.

As to the bolded question, what would happen would probably be the exact same thing that would need to happen now if someone who was in a same sex marriage and a member of the church decided they wanted to receive their endowments. 

If God supports breaking up a family unit right now for a person in a same sex marriage to receive their endowment (and it seems like the church teaches that He does), then why wouldn't He in the future?

Edited by bluebell
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I didn't say that it wasn't against the LoC.  I said that you can't say that SSM is a sin because it's not marriage according to the Laws of God.  You can argue that SSM breaks the LoC, you just have to find a different reason as to why.

What is God's law on marriage? Can you give me an example? I only ever see it taught as between a man and a woman. I have never seen it taught that it is between SS individuals, unless you can provide otherwise.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, filovirus said:

Never in the history of Earth have a XX and XX couple provided a child, nor an XY and XY couple.

While currently true, many are optimistic that the technology of artificial gametes is not too far from contradicting this. XX+XX, because they have the ability to gestate, may not be very far from being able to fertilize and gestate their own biological children. XY+XY, naturally, are farther out because we don't, yet, have the technology for them to gestate their own child.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, kimpearson said:

Please give it a try again to explain how accepting gay marriage would destroy the doctrine of marriage between a man and a woman.

I spent an hour last night transcribing a portion of President Oaks’s talk to provide that explanation. I doubt you’ve even bothered to read it. I don’t think very many others here have either. 
 

To me, what he said makes eminent sense, and I can’t improve on it. 

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

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