Family proclamation founded on irrevocable doctrine: President Oaks

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I notice you didn’t answer the question, which was, “Do you sincerely believe President Oaks meant to imply in his talk that anything in the proclamation is inconsistent with the irrevocable doctrines it was founded on?”  
 

Ah well. You may regard it as a rhetorical question if you like. 

This sounded like an answer to me:

Quote

 don't think any prophet or apostle has ever taught a doctrine they believed to be in error, or incomplete, or changeable. 

 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why don’t you want to talk about connotation?

Because you said you weren’t going to talk about it?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Because you said you weren’t going to talk about it?

CFR

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

This sounded like an answer to me:

 

Then why push the point about what “founded on” means?

[pogi]

38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I choose not to go down rabbit holes at this point. Why don’t you want to talk about connotation?  Is it because you know the answer to the question I posed to HJW? 

Convenient to ignore the obvious answer.  There is no rabbit hole.  There is a yes or no answer. 

Scott, you are the one that said that you don't want to talk about the connotation any more, when you said "I'll leave it at that".  I am simply conceding to your wishes and addressing other things, which you also seem unwilling to address because it obviously weakens your position. 

38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

“Do you sincerely believe President Oaks meant to imply in his talk that anything in the proclamation is inconsistent with the irrevocable doctrines it was founded on?”

I'll go down your "rabbit hole" when you go down mine.  I can play that game too.  I really would like to answer your question, but I will refrain upon principle until my question is answered. 

Edited April 7, 2022 by pogi

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR

This:

Quote

But since it appears y neither of us will be swayed, I’ll leave it at that. 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74455-family-proclamation-founded-on-irrevocable-doctrine-president-oaks/?do=findComment&comment=1210089276

Guess I misinterpreted what you meant by “leave it at that”, that you weren’t going to say anything else about connotations, but I am having a hard time seeing what else that means. 

Edited April 7, 2022 by Calm

[Navidad]

On 4/5/2022 at 5:58 PM, 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?

I am not a part of this general discussion, but yes, I think you need to make some clarifying statements. What I think should be clarified is that all of God's teachings come through human interaction and interpretation. If God thundered to an entire town, the disparate recollections of His words and intent would be legion. For our parts, I think it needs to be clarified that we all (each and every one of us) sees through a glass darkly and holds our treasured truths in clay jars, that are susceptible to breakage and remolding. Finally when doctrine becomes too infused with human fallibility, it becomes dogma. Dogma almost always leads to dysfunction, damage, and or destruction in some form. Thanks.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

This:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74455-family-proclamation-founded-on-irrevocable-doctrine-president-oaks/?do=findComment&comment=1210089276

Guess I misinterpreted what you meant by “leave it at that”, that you weren’t going to say anything else about connotations, but I am having a hard time seeing what else that means. 

How about that I didn’t want to pursue a back-and-forth with one person that appeared to be going nowhere? I didn’t say that I wouldn’t discuss connotation in concept others. 

Edited April 7, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[pogi]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How about that I didn’t want to pursue a back-and-forth with one person that appeared to be going nowhere. I didn’t say that I wouldn’t discuss connotation in concept others. 

With "others", but not with me.   Right.   You are admitting that you are the one who didn't want to discuss the connotation with me (and not the other way around, as you wanted to make it seem).

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I notice you didn’t answer the question, which was, “Do you sincerely believe President Oaks meant to imply in his talk that anything in the proclamation is inconsistent with the irrevocable doctrines it was founded on?”  
 

Ah well. You may regard it as a rhetorical question if you like. 

I believe he believes the proclamation (which I'm certain he helped to craft) is based on doctrines that are irrevocable. I believe he believes that to the point of hubris.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I imagine most practicing Jews would disagree with you.  The OT calls the Law of Moses Everlasting.  

http://www.hadavar.org/critical-issues/anti-missionary-arguments/additional-issues/the-law-of-moses-is-eternal/

Kind of hard to have animal sacrifice in the eternities.  That law is limited to mortality.

[Teancum]

54 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Kind of hard to have animal sacrifice in the eternities.  That law is limited to mortality.

That does not address the belief that the Law of Moses for many was not temporary.  And who knows.  

[filovirus]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am not a part of this general discussion, but yes, I think you need to make some clarifying statements. What I think should be clarified is that all of God's teachings come through human interaction and interpretation. If God thundered to an entire town, the disparate recollections of His words and intent would be legion. For our parts, I think it needs to be clarified that we all (each and every one of us) sees through a glass darkly and holds our treasured truths in clay jars, that are susceptible to breakage and remolding. Finally when doctrine becomes too infused with human fallibility, it becomes dogma. Dogma almost always leads to dysfunction, damage, and or destruction in some form. Thanks.

Sure. I agree with you. We are all going to have our different understandings of what are God's intentions. And we will all (collectively) have a different version. Thankfully, God instituted a method to get by that. For one, neither you nor I will receive doctrine for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Could you imagine if all 16 million members were receiving revelation for the church. Even though we all get the same message, we are all going to see it differently. 16 million different doctrines, all received by revelation.

For two, God has elected certain individuals to be his spokesperson for the congregation; "...special witnesses in the name of Christ in all the world..." So now we go from 16 million different doctrines, to only a few; 15 to be exact. "...whether by my own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same". And are we not taught that the most important prophet for us is the living prophet? So now we only have 15 different doctrines based on revelation from the Lord.

For three, we have the law of witnesses. This failsafe is to make sure we are not given any false doctrine from any one of those 15. "...in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."

It is interesting that we have 15 witnesses, much more than the required 2-3, that have signed their names to the Proclamation to the Family. One of which spoke to us just earlier this week. 

[california boy]

22 hours ago, CV75 said:

The part that my post relates to is the false concept "that the Celestial Kingdom is ONLY for God's straight children." Man/woman marriages are not dependent upon sexual orientation, i.e., "gay" / "straight", which I am correcting (yes, I understand it is not your idea, and terms like "heterosexual marriage" and "homosexual marriage" ignore the fact that the covenant is gender-based, not sexuality-based). The celestial kingdom is for all God's children who would truly enjoy living there under the laws and terms of that kingdom. Man/woman marriages are part of the plan, but even more so, essential to the plan since that is how Jesus, the Epicenter of the plan, executed the plan. Hence the "essential characteristics" of gender, not sexuality.

 

Jesus the Epicenter of the plan?   Are you claiming that Jesus married a woman?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Jesus the Epicenter of the plan?   Are you claiming that Jesus married a woman?

No. I am "claiming" that He is the Epicenter of the plan of salvation, chosen to carry out His Atonement by covenant from before the foundation of the world; that to accomplish this He had to be born into mortality; that God is His Father and Mary is His mother; that His Father was a male and His mother a female; and, that His parents' covenant relationship was a marriage. These are essential basics of the plan. I think you may not understand agreement with your own posts: you said that "man/woman marriages" are part of the plan; i.e., gender is the essential characteristic of the spouses; sexual orientation is not.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Jesus the Epicenter of the plan?   Are you claiming that Jesus married a woman?

What's wrong with that?

[california boy]

On 4/6/2022 at 7:44 PM, CV75 said:

The part that my post relates to is the false concept "that the Celestial Kingdom is ONLY for God's straight children." Man/woman marriages are not dependent upon sexual orientation, i.e., "gay" / "straight", which I am correcting (yes, I understand it is not your idea, and terms like "heterosexual marriage" and "homosexual marriage" ignore the fact that the covenant is gender-based, not sexuality-based). The celestial kingdom is for all God's children who would truly enjoy living there under the laws and terms of that kingdom. Man/woman marriages are part of the plan, but even more so, essential to the plan since that is how Jesus, the Epicenter of the plan, executed the plan. Hence the "essential characteristics" of gender, not sexuality.

 

I would agree with you. But the Church seems to have a very definite view that only straight marriages count.  That is the whole point of the divisiveness of this policy.  Do you think there is room in the Celestial Kingdom for me and my partner?  I don't care whether the sex continues into the next life.  I do care very much if the relationship and love carries into the next life.

[california boy]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What's wrong with that?

I didn't say anything was wrong with it.  I am asking if a person believes that Christ leads the way in setting the pattern, don't they have to be sure He was married?  And is that true?  Do they believe it.  And if they do, what is their evidence to support that belief.

[california boy]

12 hours ago, CV75 said:

No. I am "claiming" that He is the Epicenter of the plan of salvation, chosen to carry out His Atonement by covenant from before the foundation of the world; that to accomplish this He had to be born into mortality; that God is His Father and Mary is His mother; that His Father was a male and His mother a female; and, that His parents' covenant relationship was a marriage. These are essential basics of the plan. I think you may not understand agreement with your own posts: you said that "man/woman marriages" are part of the plan; i.e., gender is the essential characteristic of the spouses; sexual orientation is not.

Well first of all, I have never seen any indication that all those marriages you speak of are anything like the modern temple marriage.  And the missing link is the marriage of Christ himself. If Christ set the example of being baptized, which was recorded in each of the gospels, why did't he make sure to set the example of His being married and also make sure that was recorded?

You don't really have much to back up your claim.  It is kinda problematic.

[HappyJackWagon]

All this talk about the Proclamation got me wondering about other salient topics leaders may have addressed in conference.

I didn't watch or listen to conference.

Was there any mention of the atrocities of war? Or possibly a call for increased humanitarian aid or service to refugees? I'm hoping so.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Well first of all, I have never seen any indication that all those marriages you speak of are anything like the modern temple marriage.  And the missing link is the marriage of Christ himself. If Christ set the example of being baptized, which was recorded in each of the gospels, why did't he make sure to set the example of His being married and also make sure that was recorded?

You don't really have much to back up your claim.  It is kinda problematic.

No hard evidence in the Bible that Jesus was married but  there are many hints.  Non-Mormon Bible scholars have suggested that Jesus was probably married, including a Protestant scholar, William E. Phipps, who wrote an entire book on the subject called, Was Jesus Married?, where he considers both historical and scriptural evidence for his conclusions. Phipps said:

"According to Semitic tradition it was as obligatory for a father to find a wife for his son as to teach him and circumcise him. Hence, even if there were no reference in the Gospels to Jesus's circumcision, it would be wrong to conclude that his father neglected or rejected that duty. Just as the Koran does not mention circumcision and takes the obligation of marriage for granted, so the Gospels do not mention the circumcision or marriage of most of the men who are discussed in it. This is due to the fact that those social institutions were practiced in a thoroughgoing manner in the Semitic culture. Deviations from normative behavior are more likely to be remembered and thus lodged in oral and written traditions, so it makes sense to assume that Jesus and his apostles were all circumcised and married." (1973:44-45)

Dr. Malachi Martin, a Catholic scholar and a former member of the Vatican's Pontifical Institute, "conceded that there was ultimately no real theological objection to a married Jesus".

Jesus and His parents were known to properly follow all the Jewish customs of the day. If that is true, included in those customs would be that of the father arranging for his son's marriage, as early as 16 years old; which means that Jesus could have been married for as many as 10 to 15 years before He started His ministry.
Also, during His ministry, none of those critical of Jesus made any accusations of Him not following the strict tradition of marriage; possibly because they knew that He was married. It is interesting to note also that Jesus was referred to by a title only given to married teachers, that of Rabbi(John 1:38, 49; 6:25).
There are elements in the wedding account(John 2:1-10) that suggest it was the wedding of Jesus. The fact that Mary(His mother) was worried about the supply of wine and that she presented the problem to Jesus, suggests that Mary was the hostess of the wedding and that Jesus was the groom. Traditionally, the mother of the groom was the wedding hostess and it was the groom's responsibility to provide the wine.

 Mary Magdalene was often referred to as "woman" The Greek word for "woman" and "wife" is the same. Translators must rely upon the context in deciding how to translate it. Sometimes, the translation is arbitrary. When Mary is referred to as a "woman" who followed Jesus, it can just as easily be translated as "wife".

[Navidad]

18 hours ago, filovirus said:

Sure. I agree with you. We are all going to have our different understandings of what are God's intentions. And we will all (collectively) have a different version. Thankfully, God instituted a method to get by that. For one, neither you nor I will receive doctrine for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Could you imagine if all 16 million members were receiving revelation for the church. Even though we all get the same message, we are all going to see it differently. 16 million different doctrines, all received by revelation.

For two, God has elected certain individuals to be his spokesperson for the congregation; "...special witnesses in the name of Christ in all the world..." So now we go from 16 million different doctrines, to only a few; 15 to be exact. "...whether by my own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same". And are we not taught that the most important prophet for us is the living prophet? So now we only have 15 different doctrines based on revelation from the Lord.

For three, we have the law of witnesses. This failsafe is to make sure we are not given any false doctrine from any one of those 15. "...in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."

It is interesting that we have 15 witnesses, much more than the required 2-3, that have signed their names to the Proclamation to the Family. One of which spoke to us just earlier this week. 

Thanks. I think you would agree that all 15 are fallible, wouldn't you? At best, then that means that you, me, or anyone else can only have provisional certitude until we experience first hand the world and reality to come.

[filovirus]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

Thanks. I think you would agree that all 15 are fallible, wouldn't you? At best, then that means that you, me, or anyone else can only have provisional certitude until we experience first hand the world and reality to come.

Fallible? Sure. Fifteen together, not so much. Just like a trial. One witness is easily disproven. We have fifteen witnessing that the proclamation “qualifies according to the definition as revelation”. It would take disproving that each one didn’t receive it by revelation individually, and I think it would be difficult disproving even one.

I’ve seen it mentioned many times that we can’t know truth. We may not know all truth. But we definitely know some truth. For instance, if we didn’t know that God will not lie to us, the whole plan of happiness would cease to exist.

 

[CV75]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

I would agree with you. But the Church seems to have a very definite view that only straight marriages count.  That is the whole point of the divisiveness of this policy.  Do you think there is room in the Celestial Kingdom for me and my partner?  I don't care whether the sex continues into the next life.  I do care very much if the relationship and love carries into the next life.

CFR that the Church teaches "straight" / "heterosexual" marriages -- it clearly never speaks of marriage in these terms.

11 hours ago, california boy said:

Well first of all, I have never seen any indication that all those marriages you speak of are anything like the modern temple marriage.  And the missing link is the marriage of Christ himself. If Christ set the example of being baptized, which was recorded in each of the gospels, why did't he make sure to set the example of His being married and also make sure that was recorded?

You don't really have much to back up your claim.  It is kinda problematic.

Ancient and modern marriage relationships are always between a man and a woman, no matter how they are otherwise performed or structured. But we do know that He is legitimately the Son of God and Mary, meaning their covenant relationship was a marriage. It does not matter whether Jesus was married in this life or not; many people are unmarried in this life. But He showed us that His parents were. And we all know that not everyone is born legitimately or gets baptized in this life, either.

 

[Navidad]

9 hours ago, filovirus said:

Fallible? Sure. Fifteen together, not so much. Just like a trial. One witness is easily disproven. We have fifteen witnessing that the proclamation “qualifies according to the definition as revelation”. It would take disproving that each one didn’t receive it by revelation individually, and I think it would be difficult disproving even one.

I’ve seen it mentioned many times that we can’t know truth. We may not know all truth. But we definitely know some truth. For instance, if we didn’t know that God will not lie to us, the whole plan of happiness would cease to exist.

 

Truth is indeed tricky. Individual (whether literally individual or group) truth can certainly vary can't it? Even those attributed to God. One example, it is both a truth and doctrine in many Mennonite communities that peace as exemplified in pacifism and conscientious objector status is a truth straight out of the special revelation of the scriptures. Therefore one could not be a member of a Mennonite church if that person served in any capacity where carrying a gun was necessary. No police, members of the military, forest rangers, etc. If one joined the military, they had to resign their membership. I once almost didn't get a job as a director of a Mennonite school because one board member thought my peace position was "too weak."

To this day there are very strict positions on this issue in some Mennonite churches. This is their truth straight from the Spirit-breathed Word (mouth) of God for over five centuries. I once heard Patrick Mason, a wonderful LDS historian give a talk at a large banquet on "Conscientious Objectors in the LDS Church during the two world wars." Perhaps some on this forum were there and heard it. Bottom line, he said his research had discovered a handful (my term) of members of the church who claimed a conscientious objector status during those times. I think most were in England. There were thousands of Mennonites who did the same at the same time. They shared a common truth. Thee Truth? No, I don't think so, but there is a history of Mennonite martyrs who died for that position. It is a primary reason why so many Mennonites came to Mexico from Canada in the post-WWI years. Truth is tricky.