Family proclamation founded on irrevocable doctrine: President Oaks

[teddyaware]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

if they allowed SSM it wouldn't unchange marriage between a man and a woman, both exist at the same time-like we have now

Since the central purpose of celestial marriage is the everlasting enlargement of the family through the means of procreation, how could childless marriages between people of the same sex fulfill that purpose and destiny? Celestial marriage isn’t merely about living together as a couple forever, it’s about having offspring  and that’s something people of the same gender can’t do. Doctrine and Covenants 132 puts it this way:

“and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.”

 I’m trying to understand why the advocates of temple marriage between people of the same sex don’t realize the idea is solemn mockery before God, amounting to nothing more than an empty consolation prize without meaning?

Edited April 6, 2022 by teddyaware

[Duncan]

45 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Since the central purpose of celestial marriage is the everlasting enlargement of the family through the means of procreation, how could childless marriages between people of the same sex fulfill that purpose and destiny? Celestial marriage isn’t merely about living together as a couple forever, it’s about having offspring  and that’s something people the same gender can’t do. Doctrine and Covenants 132 puts it this way:

“and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.”

 I’m trying to understand why the advocates of temple marriage between people of the same sex don’t realize the idea is solemn mockery before God, amounting to nothing more than an empty consolation prize without meaning?

With God nothing shall be impossible. The same way that childless couples or single people now can't have kids for whatever reason. By the way it says "continuation of the seeds" not necessarily "their" seeds. It doesn't have to mean that they will have continuation of children but that God our Heavenly Father has a continuation of his children who make it that far and it keeps going as more of his people continue. Not everyone is in a SSM.

[Buckeye]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Since the central purpose of celestial marriage is the everlasting enlargement of the family through the means of procreation, how could childless marriages between people of the same sex fulfill that purpose and destiny? Celestial marriage isn’t merely about living together as a couple forever, it’s about having offspring  and that’s something people the same gender can’t do. Doctrine and Covenants 132 puts it this way:

“and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.”

 I’m trying to understand why the advocates of temple marriage between people of the same sex don’t realize the idea is solemn mockery before God, amounting to nothing more than an empty consolation prize without meaning?

Eternal progeny does not require sex - either in this life or the next. Adopted children are progeny. Christ could raise seed into Abraham from rocks. Indeed, anyone who gives of their life to raise another is a father or mother.

In the King Follett discourse Joseph taught that we are all co-eternal with God.

God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself.

God is not our Father because he had sex once a million years ago.  He’s our Father because he sacrificed his time and talents to help us become like him.  

In a few weeks I’ll call my earthly father on Father’s Day. I won’t express appreciation that he provided sperm one time decades ago - that has nothing to do with our relationship. He’s my father because he gave his life in service to me and still shows the way. In this regard I’m exactly the same as millions of children of gay fathers who will express the same gratitude to their fathers on Fathers Day. 

Seriously, do you know any gay or lesbian couples? If you talk to them for even a minute you’ll learn that their marriage and parenthood is anything but an empty consolation price. 

Edited April 6, 2022 by Buckeye

[Calm]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

childless marriages between people of the same sex fulfill that purpose and destiny

Why does every marriage have to have the same purpose and destiny?  We have seen already that God is good with providing a variety of destines with three heavens and differentiations within them.

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

Was plural marriage an eternal concept, if so, why was stopped?

“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.”

Edited April 6, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[the narrator]

14 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Marriage was regarded as sacramental in the 1184 Council of Verona's edict to the Cathars and in various council statements from then on. No ritual was prescribed until Trent, if I am not mistaken, but marriage itself was considered sacramental. Furthermore, the institution of marriage (and thus the condition of husband/wife) is implicated as possessing divine sanction by the Gospels and the Pauline epistles. 

I would add that Matthew 19:4-6 references the Adam and Eve narrative while the Savior is discussing divorce, so Matthew at least viewed Adam and Eve as married. 

I agree that the Eden narrative does have Adam and Eve in a marriage-like relationship. My point is simply that there was no act of marriage that occurred, and that their relationship was no different than if Aaron and Edith today decided to be like Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn and cohabitate in a committed relationship and have children without ever actually being married.

[the narrator]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And you thereby contradict the teaching of a member of the First Presidency openly expressed in the world general conference of the Church. Let’s be clear on that. 

LOLZ. You are hilarious.

[the narrator]

14 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Except that it wasn't. Happy to provide some introductory resources on this matter if you're genuinely interested. (Or you could just search the dozens of posts where I've provided them in the past ...)

Are you claiming that before the 19th century two men were never sexually and emotionally attracted to each other?

[the narrator]

9 hours ago, JAHS said:

Brigham Young himself said blacks would someday get the priesthood. No prophet has ever said God would some day approve of SSM.

Brigham Young said that Blacks would not get the priesthood until the millennium and only after all the white bros got it. (This is one place where the Gospel Topics Essay is deliberately dishonest--and a reason why the author refused to have his name attached as originally planned.)

[the narrator]

14 hours ago, filovirus said:

Divine truth just is. Absolute reality. Divine truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.

Well this is a rather useless definition, since nobody can access this (or at least know for certain that they are accessing it).

[the narrator]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Since the central purpose of celestial marriage is the everlasting enlargement of the family through the means of procreation

Where is it taught that the purpose of celestial marriage is to produce spirit babies by sexual intercourse with a penis and vagina?

[the narrator]

2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

Eternal progeny does not require sex - either in this life or the next. Adopted children are progeny. Christ could raise seed into Abraham from rocks. Indeed, anyone who gives of their life to raise another is a father or mother.

In the King Follett discourse Joseph taught that we are all co-eternal with God.

God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself.

God is not our Father because he had sex once a million years ago.  He’s our Father because he sacrificed his time and talents to help us become like him.  

In a few weeks I’ll call my earthly father on Father’s Day. I won’t express appreciation that he provided sperm one time decades ago - that has nothing to do with our relationship. He’s my father because he gave his life in service to me and still shows the way. In this regard I’m exactly the same as millions of children of gay fathers who will express the same gratitude to their fathers on Fathers Day. 

Seriously, do you know any gay or lesbian couples? If you talk to them for even a minute you’ll learn that their marriage and parenthood is anything but an empty consolation price. 

Yes, and the dominant narrative in LDS canon is one where spirits are eternal and God (as the most intelligent of spirits) essentially adopts those spirits and makes them his children. The notion that God and His wife/wives sexually produces spirit children seems to mostly be a result of trying to justify and explain polygamy--just as later Saints would begin constructing premortal narratives to justify and explain racist priesthood and temple prohibitions.

Edited April 6, 2022 by the narrator

[JAHS]

5 hours ago, Duncan said:

10 hours ago, JAHS said:

Well they are dealing with it now. Marriage between a man and woman is unchangeable doctrine. 

if they allowed SSM it wouldn't unchange marriage between a man and a woman, both exist at the same time-like we have now

It's an unchangeable doctrine for active faithful members of the church who wish to participate in the church and attend the temple and who want exaltation.

 

[filovirus]

44 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Well this is a rather useless definition, since nobody can access this (or at least know for certain that they are accessing it).

That is why we have doctrine. Doctrine is the teachings that help us understand divine truth. But first, we need to know that there is a divine truth, whether you find the definition useless or not.

Edited April 6, 2022 by filovirus

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

Eternal progeny does not require sex - either in this life or the next. Adopted children are progeny. Christ could raise seed into Abraham from rocks. Indeed, anyone who gives of their life to raise another is a father or mother.

In the King Follett discourse Joseph taught that we are all co-eternal with God.

God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself.

God is not our Father because he had sex once a million years ago.  He’s our Father because he sacrificed his time and talents to help us become like him.  

In a few weeks I’ll call my earthly father on Father’s Day. I won’t express appreciation that he provided sperm one time decades ago - that has nothing to do with our relationship. He’s my father because he gave his life in service to me and still shows the way. In this regard I’m exactly the same as millions of children of gay fathers who will express the same gratitude to their fathers on Fathers Day. 

Seriously, do you know any gay or lesbian couples? If you talk to them for even a minute you’ll learn that their marriage and parenthood is anything but an empty consolation price. 

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Why does every marriage have to have the same purpose and destiny?  We have seen already that God is good with providing a variety of destines with three heavens and differentiations within them.

 

32 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Yes, and the dominant narrative in LDS canon is one where spirits are eternal and God (as the most intelligent of spirits) essentially adopts those spirits and makes them his children. The notion that God and His wife/wives sexually produces spirit children seems to mostly be a result of trying to justify and explain polygamy--just as later Saints would begin constructing premortal narratives to justify and explain racist priesthood and temple prohibitions.

These truths completely blow out of the water all the reasons why some members think that gay couples can not continue to live as gay couples when they die.  They are truths that no member who thinks that the Celestial Kingdom is ONLY for God's straight children have no answer to unless you can convince every woman ever born that she is going to be pregnant for eternity and her only purpose in the next life is to have billions of children.  That makes absolutely no sense and has no doctrinal support.  If there is such doctrinal support, then please show it.  Then go tell your wife and see what she thinks of this wonderful life after she dies.

[JAHS]

56 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I agree that the Eden narrative does have Adam and Eve in a marriage-like relationship. My point is simply that there was no act of marriage that occurred, and that their relationship was no different than if Aaron and Edith today decided to be like Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn and cohabitate in a committed relationship and have children without ever actually being married.

Well if you believe the prophets they were married:
“In 1835 when the Prophet Joseph Smith began performing marriages, he declared that ‘marriage was an institution of heaven, instituted in the garden of Eden.’ (History of the Church, 2:320; emphasis added.) Elder Joseph Fielding Smith also explained, “The transgression of Adam did not involve sex sin as some falsely believe and teach. Adam and Eve were married by the Lord while they were yet immortal beings in the Garden of Eden and before death entered the world.” (Doctrines and Salvation, 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954, 1:114-15.)

[CV75]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

 

 

These truths completely blow out of the water all the reasons why some members think that gay couples can not continue to live as gay couples when they die.  They are truths that no member who thinks that the Celestial Kingdom is ONLY for God's straight children have no answer to unless you can convince every woman ever born that she is going to be pregnant for eternity and her only purpose in the next life is to have billions of children.  That makes absolutely no sense and has no doctrinal support.  If there is such doctrinal support, then please show it.  Then go tell your wife and see what she thinks of this wonderful life after she dies.

Given how the relationship and its origin are described as being created spiritually before naturally upon the earth, the imagery of Eve being formed from Adam's rib indicates they were already united as man and wife, by design, for some time. The instructions, commandments and blessings given to Adam when he was alone were thus set upon Eve as well (as are children who are born in the covenant), and the confirmation of these once Eve was brought forth from Adam is the content of the marriage ordinance and vows, before and after the Fall. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with this relationship; it is a secondary or tertiary element of our own creation that we impose on our perception of the covenant.

Of course the root of this relationship is founded in the Atonement of Jesus Christ, who executed this atonement by coming to the earth as the Son of a married (in a manner of speaking, since it was through the covenant relationship between a Man and a woman) mother and Father. Het set the pattern in this way.

Edited April 6, 2022 by CV75

[pogi]

15 hours ago, filovirus said:

So what is doctrine then? I will put down a definition, and we will see if we both agree.

Doctrine: What God teaches is called doctrine. God supplies his doctrine by way of commandments and instructions. "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth shall pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

Do I need to make any clarifying statements?

Lets suppose we both agree, does that mean that we decide what doctrine is?  

I am not opposed to the idea that God's words are doctrine, but ultimately we all have to decide what words our prophets speaks are actually from God.   This word passes through several filters.  First, the prophet himself has to interpret what often might be ineffable experience into words.  Second, the members have to interpret those words based on their own understanding.  So, ultimately God's teachings are never entirely pure except when delivered and received via the Holly Spirit.  So, to say that the scriptures are doctrine, for example, may be true in that it contains God's words (as transcribed and interpreted by man), but ultimately we are left to interpret them and come to different conclusions and then argue about which is the correct doctrine/interpretation.   

I think prophets are the mouthpiece for God and that revelation for the church comes through them, but again, they are fallible and have a history of claiming doctrine of which time has a way of altering.  So, you end up with at least 2 different groups because of this, you have the more fundamentalist, like JLHPROF, who believe the original pronouncements are the ones from God and that later corrections and changes are a deviation from true doctrine, then you have those who believe that modern prophets are more authoritative sources of doctrine and that living prophets are more authoritative in terms of doctrine.   The one thing that I hope we all can agree on is that our collective understanding of doctrines can and do change.   Doctrine can only be given through the spirit and interpreted by the spirit on a personal level.  It is something that we all have to work through ourselves.  Even when a doctrine is received by the Spirit, that is not to say that our understanding/interpretation of that doctrine can't evolve in time as we palpate more of the elephant - so to speak. 

Edited April 6, 2022 by pogi

[the narrator]

23 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Well if you believe the prophets they were married:
“In 1835 when the Prophet Joseph Smith began performing marriages, he declared that ‘marriage was an institution of heaven, instituted in the garden of Eden.’ (History of the Church, 2:320; emphasis added.) Elder Joseph Fielding Smith also explained, “The transgression of Adam did not involve sex sin as some falsely believe and teach. Adam and Eve were married by the Lord while they were yet immortal beings in the Garden of Eden and before death entered the world.” (Doctrines and Salvation, 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954, 1:114-15.)

I don't disagree that Joseph Smith believed and taught that God performed a marriage for two immortal naked people (one made of clay, the other of a rib [after the former complained to God that he wasn't interested in having sex with animals]) who engaged a talking snake and were living six thousand years ago in an immortal garden in Missourri that was being guarded by angels with flaming swords.

I, however, absolutely do not believe that the human family began in Missouri six thousand years ago with two immortal naked people made out of clay and a rib who engaged talking snakes. And I am quite confident in asserting that Joseph Smith and other prophets are absolutely wrong about that being the case. Though, I guess Joseph Fielding Smith may be correct, and my belief that the earth is older than 13,000 years may just be me being deceived by Satan. I do wonder where you stand on this though. Do you agree with the prophets that Adam and Eve were created in Missouri six thousand years ago and that no humans (or even death!) existed on the planet before then? Or do you believe that the prophets were wrong on this matter?

That said, I should also revise my earlier claims that while an actual marriage (with some ceremony being performed) is not in the canon, such a marriage does exist within the LDS Eden tradition.

[filovirus]

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

Lets suppose we both agree, does that mean that we decide what doctrine is?  

I am not opposed to the idea that God's words are doctrine, but ultimately we all have to decide what words are prophet speaks are actually from God.   This word passes through several filters.  First, the prophet himself has to interpret what often might be ineffable experience into words.  Second, the members have to interpret those words based on their own understanding.  So, ultimately God's teachings are never entirely pure except when delivered and received via the Holly Spirit.  So, to say that the scriptures are doctrine, for example, may be true in that it contains God's words, but ultimately we are left to interpret them and come to different conclusions and then argue about which is the correct doctrine/interpretation.   

I think prophets are the mouthpiece for God and that revelation for the church comes through them, but again, they are fallible and have a history of claiming doctrine of which time has a way of altering.  So, you end up with at least 2 different groups because of this, you have the more fundamentalist, like JLHPROF, who believe the original pronouncements are the ones from God and that later corrections and changes are a deviation from true doctrine, then you have those who believe that modern prophets are more authoritative sources of doctrine and that living prophets are more authoritative in terms of doctrine.   The one thing that I hope we all can agree on is that our collective understanding of doctrines can and do change.   Doctrine can only be given through the spirit and interpreted by the spirit on a personal level.  It is something that we all have to work through ourselves.  Even when a doctrine is received by the Spirit, that is not to say that our understanding can't evolve in time as we palpate more of the elephant - so to speak. 

OK. I can get behind all of that. I 100% agree that some doctrine can change over time, but that divine truth cannot. For example, we have a divine truth that God has power, and we know this power by the name of priesthood. God does authorizes certain individuals to access that power here on earth. Now, at different times throughout history, as taught in the scriptures, the doctrine regarding who can hold the priesthood has changed. At times is was the Levites. At times it was withheld from the gentiles. We know recently it was withheld from the black population. But the divine truth that God has power called the priesthood has not changed.

So were do we get this "doctrine" from? We ourselves can receive the word of God. But in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (from now on referred to as the church), there is an order set up of who can actually receive this doctrine for the church as a whole. Unfortunately, both you and I are not that person. Can we agree on that?

Edited April 6, 2022 by filovirus

[JAHS]

11 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I don't disagree that Joseph Smith believed and taught that God performed a marriage for two immortal naked people (one made of clay, the other of a rib [after the former complained to God that he wasn't interested in having sex with animals]) who engaged a talking snake and were living six thousand years ago in an immortal garden in Missourri that was being guarded by angels with flaming swords.

I, however, absolutely do not believe that the human family began in Missouri six thousand years ago with two immortal naked people made out of clay and a rib who engaged talking snakes. And I am quite confident in asserting that Joseph Smith and other prophets are absolutely wrong about that being the case. Though, I guess Joseph Fielding Smith may be correct, and my belief that the earth is older than 13,000 years may just be me being deceived by Satan. I do wonder where you stand on this though. Do you agree with the prophets that Adam and Eve were created in Missouri six thousand years ago and that no humans (or even death!) existed on the planet before then? Or do you believe that the prophets were wrong on this matter?

That said, I should also revise my earlier claims that while an actual marriage (with some ceremony being performed) is not in the canon, such a marriage does exist within the LDS Eden tradition.

Most of the garden of eden story should be taken figuratively and not literally. All we know is that Adam and Eve were real and the fall of man and it's consequences were real, but the garden of Eden trees, an actual serpent, Eve being created from Adam's rib, etc. should all most likely be taken figuratively.  Adam and Eve were somehow placed on this earth as the first man and woman of the human race as we know it today, which started about 6000 years ago. We don't know what happened before that except what the scientists suggest happened. 

Spencer W. Kimball, as president of the Church, stated that the rib story was figurative (Spencer W. Kimball, "The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood," Ensign, Mar. 1976, p. 71.)

According to elder Bruce R. McConkie, this Mosaic account is merely figurative and Eve was placed on the earth in the same manner as was Adam. (Mormon Doctrine, p. 242)

Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, and others stated that Adam and Eve's bodies were engendered and born by natural means and that they were placed in Eden as adult beings.

Here are a couple of quotes from Brigham Young:
"Numerous are the scriptures which I might bring to bear upon the subject of the personality of god. I shall not take time to quote them on this occasion but will content myself by quoting two passages in the 1st chapter of genesis 26th and 27th verses.
And god said let us make man in our image after our likeness and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So god created man in his or image in the image of god created he him male and female created he them. I believe that the declaration made in these two scriptures is literally true. God has made his children like himself to stand erect and has endowed them with intelligence and power and dominion over all his works and given them the same attributes which he himself possesses. He created man as we create our children for there is no other process of creation in heaven on the earth in the earth or under the earth or in all the eternities that is that were or that ever will be." (Journal of Discourses 11:122)

"Here let me state to all philosopahers of every class upon the earth. when you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobies from the earth. You tell me what I deem an idle tale when you tell me that the beasts of the field were produced in that manner. You are speaking idle words devoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities. Where the gods dwell mankind are here because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet and power was given them to propagate their species and they were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth." (Journal of Discourses 7:285-286)

Joseph Smith is quoted as saying:
"Now regarding Adam: He came here from another planet, an immortalized Being, and brought his wife Eve with him, and by eating of the fruit of this earth, became subject to death and decay. . . was made mortal and subject to death." - (Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., as recorded by Anson Call and copied by Patriarch John Whitmer)

I don't know if these should be considered actual church doctrines or just the opinions of the prophets. Bottom line is we don't know for sure what happened and it doesn't really matter that we know how it happened.

[MrShorty]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And you thereby contradict the teaching of a member of the First Presidency openly expressed in the world general conference of the Church. Let’s be clear on that. 

I'm going to deviate a bit from the main thread topic, but this struck me this morning. Is this (contradicting a teaching of a member of the First Presidency) a problem? Is it sin? Is it wrong?

I have said before that I don't think we handle prophetic fallibility very well in the Church. What struck me this morning is how different it is for past prophets and apostles and for present prophets and apostles. It is easy to throw past prophets and apostles under the bus for their doctrinal errors (is it hindsight that makes it easy or simple distance?). For the present cadre, however, it is more difficult.

Which leads to my question -- recognizing that even the current cadre of prophets and apostles can make doctrinal errors -- is it wrong to contradict them? If so, why?

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

They have answered it, unfortunately it is not satisfying to some.  What clarification do you expect?  A gay lifestyle does not mesh with the restored Gospel.  This, understandably, puts the Church and gay members in an awkward position.  There is no good answer that will satisfy all involved.  In order for the Church to maintain its core beliefs about the plan of salvation, it must always remain that this lifestyle is not compatible, no matter how good the people are.  They have to try, as best as they can, to be loving and inviting without compromising what they believe to be eternal truth.  Elder Oaks explained that the Church operates with the purpose of promoting exaltation and that all teachings, doctrines and ordinances are focused on that one thing.  The ordinances are designed to bring us to exaltation, and therefor, a lifestyle that is in direct conflict with the divine destiny of the faithful, rightfully, cannot be included in these ordinances.  I am sure many wish it could be, but it is not compatible.  About all that can be said is that those with same-sex attraction who wish to remain in the Church and work towards exaltation, must of necessity, remain celibate their entire life, unless they can, in the rare occasion, marry a member of the opposite sex and make it work.  That isn't tenable for most.  This is a hard thing, I understand that and I believe the leaders of the Church understand it as well.  It is heartbreaking.  As much as we wish those of this community would desire to remain in the Church, it is understood that some may have to find their own path of happiness outside the Church. and I respect that decision.  We don't love them less.  This is quite clear, there can be no more clarity.  I think those who say they want more clarity are only asking for the Church to condone their desired lifestyle.  I don't think that will ever happen.  Some have suggested that the Church could offer a compromise by allowing gays who are married or dating in a chaste relationship to be baptized and hold callings just not receive temple ordinances.  This, in my opinion, would make matters worse.  There would soon be problems of a class system in the Church and it will never satisfy the advocates of a gay lifestyle.  It would create even more criticism from outside the Church with even more cries of bigotry and homophobia.  It would create more problems than it tries to solve.  Unfortunately, there is not a good satisfying answer for all involved, but the position of the Church is crystal clear.

This answers nothing. It's not a matter of the answer not being good enough. There literally is no answer. "A gay lifestyle does not mesh with the restored Gospel." That's a statement. It's not an answer. It doesn't explain WHY a gay married lifestyle can't mesh with the restored gospel. And it doesn't say anything about what happens to those gay children God created. Are they changed in the next life to no longer be gay? If not, do they have an eternal existence of loneliness? 

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

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.

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. 

[pogi]

29 minutes ago, filovirus said:

OK. I can get behind all of that. I 100% agree that some doctrine can change over time, but that divine truth cannot. For example, we have a divine truth that God has power, and we know this power by the name of priesthood. God does authorizes certain individuals to access that power here on earth. Now, at different times throughout history, as taught in the scriptures, the doctrine regarding who can hold the priesthood has changed. At times is was the Levites. At times it was withheld from the gentiles. We know recently it was withheld from the black population. But the divine truth that God has power called the priesthood has not changed.

I agree that there are divine truths, I don't believe that we will ever fully comprehend them in mortality.  I don't believe that these divine truths can be captured in words.  If doctrines are "words", then I think they fall short.  Our words describing divine truth falls short and our understanding of what these truths really are can evolve and change in time.  If a set of "words" becomes a list of "unchangeable" doctrines in our church, then we are setting up creeds which have potential to cause us to stumble and impede further understanding.  Any creeds/"eternal" doctrines in the form of words - I am opposed to.  

I agree that black people have had the priesthood withheld from them.  Was this a display of "divine truth" or God's will, or was this an example of prophetic fallibility?  If we are to believe the reasons given for the ban, then we can only conclude that it was not from God as all of those reasons have been disavowed - unless of course we accept the more fundamentalist position which suggests that old prophets are more authoritative than modern ones.  So many ways these things can be interpreted.  Ultimately, it all boils down to personal interpretation. 

37 minutes ago, filovirus said:

So were do we get this "doctrine" from? We ourselves can receive the word of God. But in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (from now on referred to as the church), there is an order set up of who can actually receive this doctrine for the church as a whole. Unfortunately, both you and I are not that person. Can we agree on that?

I agree with this, except the part that suggests that it is "unfortunate" that you and I are not that person 

[the narrator]

30 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Adam and Eve were somehow placed on this earth as the first man and woman of the human race as we know it today, which started about 6000 years ago.

So you believe that humans did not exist on the planet until 6,000 years ago? I assume then that you also believe that Adam and Eve that they were placed in Missouri at that time? Or do you reject that part? If we are going to recognize virtually every key part of the Eden narrative as figurative myth, why not recognize the whole of it as such?

I guess for me that that the science of human evolution is so utterly convincing and explanatory to me (why else do I have back hair, toe nails, and the vast majority of my DNA being shared with other mammals [or even most non-mammalian life]?) that it makes much more sense to recognize all parts of the second Genesis Creation narrative (well, also the first) as a myth based on earlier creation myths that sought to explain our existence and social norms. To each their own, right?

Edited April 6, 2022 by the narrator