Family proclamation founded on irrevocable doctrine: President Oaks

[teddyaware]

59 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Let's take this quote in context.  This was from a letter from Joseph Smith to Sidney Rigdon's daughter, Nancy, in the spring of 1842.  He was trying to convince her to become another one of his young wives. To me it sounds much more like coercion rather than revelation.

Quinn (1994, p. 112) (quoting a letter Smith wrote to Nancy Rigdon after she had rejected his proposal of polygamous marriage); Ostling & Ostling (1999, p. 65).

Regardless of origin or context, the statement is perfectly true.. 

[The Nehor]

25 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Regardless of origin or context, the statement is perfectly true.. 

Except when it comes to Christ’s marriage. In that case it must have happened because the Laws of God are eternal and unchanging and allow for no exceptions.

[Scott Lloyd]

I’ve just been reviewing the Church’s website titled “Same-Sex Attraction” (it used to be called “Mormon and Gay,” but the title was changed, more than likely pursuant to the initiative to discontinue use of nicknames such as “Mormon” or “LDS” to refer to the Church). 
 

The portion that caught my eye as I reviewed the website this time is the following. It is consistent with what President Oaks taught in his conference talk and is thus relevant to this thread. The General Handbook citation is given because the latter two paragraphs are a verbatim quotation from the handbook.  

Will the Church ever change its doctrine and sanction same-sex marriage?

Doctrine of marriage is eternal

 

Central to God’s plan, the doctrine of marriage between a man and woman is an integral teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and will not change:

As a doctrinal principle, based on the scriptures, the Church affirms that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. The Church also affirms that God’s law defines marriage as the legal and lawful union between a man and a woman.

Only a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife should have sexual relations. Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same sex, are sinful and undermine the divinely created institution of the family.

(General Handbook: Policies on Moral Issues:38.6.13)

Edited April 14, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Rivers]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve just been reviewing the Church’s website titled “Same-Sex Attraction” (it used to be called “Mormon and Gay,” but the title was changed, more than likely pursuant to the initiative to discontinue use of nicknames such as “Mormon” or “LDS” to refer to the Church). 
 

The portion that caught my eye as I reviewed the website this time is the following. It is consistent with what President Oaks taught in his conference talk and is thus relevant to this thread. The General Handbook citation is given because the latter two paragraphs are a verbatim quotation from the handbook.  

Will the Church ever change its doctrine and sanction same-sex marriage?

Doctrine of marriage is eternal

 

Central to God’s plan, the doctrine of marriage between a man and woman is an integral teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and will not change:

As a doctrinal principle, based on the scriptures, the Church affirms that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. The Church also affirms that God’s law defines marriage as the legal and lawful union between a man and a woman.

Only a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife should have sexual relations. Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same sex, are sinful and undermine the divinely created institution of the family.

(General Handbook: Policies on Moral Issues:38.6.13)

Well that settles it then.  

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I think I said it earlier in this thread, but this part of why I don't think Pres. Oaks is correct to imply that this can never change. As I see it, a God who can command genocide in the OT (I expect this is what the prophet was referring to when he talks about "utterly destroying"), tolerate slavery for most of human history, and command or tolerate racial policies around priesthood and temple ordinances, can also command (or tolerate) same sex marriage-like relationship if He should so choose. Where does the certainty that this one moral question seems immune to God's ability to tolerate morally questionable things among His people?

God seems to lag well behind human progression and social evolution.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

God seems to lag well behind human progression and social evolution.

Because both what we call human progression and social evolution are actually neither progress nor evolution.

God's going to have an interesting time undoing much of our progress in the end.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve just been reviewing the Church’s website titled “Same-Sex Attraction” (it used to be called “Mormon and Gay,” but the title was changed, more than likely pursuant to the initiative to discontinue use of nicknames such as “Mormon” or “LDS” to refer to the Church). 
 

The portion that caught my eye as I reviewed the website this time is the following. It is consistent with what President Oaks taught in his conference talk and is thus relevant to this thread. The General Handbook citation is given because the latter two paragraphs are a verbatim quotation from the handbook.  

Will the Church ever change its doctrine and sanction same-sex marriage?

Doctrine of marriage is eternal

 

Central to God’s plan, the doctrine of marriage between a man and woman is an integral teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and will not change:

As a doctrinal principle, based on the scriptures, the Church affirms that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. The Church also affirms that God’s law defines marriage as the legal and lawful union between a man and a woman.

Only a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife should have sexual relations. Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same sex, are sinful and undermine the divinely created institution of the family.

(General Handbook: Policies on Moral Issues:38.6.13)

Except continuing revelation can change any doctrine apparently.  Or so I'm frequently told by faithful members.

It's funny, when they changed things I think should never have been changed I'm told I'm ignoring their keys, continuing revelation, and prophetic calling.

But if anyone suggests they might change something others disagree with, well that could never happen.

There's a lot of double standard setting of stakes it seems.  It's all changeable until it's something we don't want changed.

[teddyaware]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Except when it comes to Christ’s marriage. In that case it must have happened because the Laws of God are eternal and unchanging and allow for no exceptions.

No, even in the case of temple marriage there are are exceptions to the rule. For example, although it’s ideal that temple marriage should be sought in every instance of LDS matrimony, yet there have been occasions when couples who applied for temple marriage were turned down after it was discovered unconfessed transgression disqualified them for that blessing. So even though temple marriage is normally the right thing to do, in some instances it’s the wrong thing to do until the process of repentance has successfully run its course.

Edited April 14, 2022 by teddyaware

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Except when it comes to Christ’s marriage. In that case it must have happened because the Laws of God are eternal and unchanging and allow for no exceptions.

Scripture says we must be baptized to enter into God's kingdom.  Christ was baptized to fulfill all righteousness.

Scripture says we must be eternally sealed in marriage to receive our exaltation.  I'll never understand why we don't think Christ fulfilled all righteousness in this too.

Scripture gives us record of his relationship with women that was clearly more than just friendship.  He is called Rabbi which my understanding required marriage under the traditions of the day.  He is called Rabboni by Mary, translated as Master, Teacher but also possibly husband.  His first resurrected appearance wasn't to the Apostles but to his family.

Why don't so many want Christ to have been married?

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Teancum said:

God seems to lag well behind human progression and social evolution.

One could look at it as Earth is Humanity’s sandbox, not God’s.  He doesn’t need a chance to show what he is made of, but we sure do; not only to others, but ourselves.  Doing right because it is important to God is a good way, but more a child’s way.  Doing right because it is important to us..I think God wants us to get to that point, so he lets us lead in many ways after providing an example.  Once we learn how to be adults, we can be one in working together.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Why don't so many want Christ to have been married?

I think it would be great for Christ to have been married in mortality, but the scriptures don’t state this, so I don’t believe someone should claim they do.  Point to things that you think hint at it, sure.  Declare it as definite, no.

As to fulfilling all righteousness, since he was an example of someone receiving an ordinance while living, why couldn’t he also serve as an example of someone who fulfills all righteousness through proxy ordinances?

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Buckeye said:

I’m an eternal optimist and also a realist. So when I see expectations lowered I’m always hopeful that eventually - including the next life - they will be raised again. I’m confident that if the church were to try to create a space for LGBT members by having lower standards, it would still offer a hope that LGBT could eventually qualify for exaltation if they renounce their sexuality, including in the next life. 
My point still remains, though. We shouldn’t expect to create a ‘lesser’ place for some group of members, even if just for this life,  and not have many other members outside that group also decide to inhabit that space. 
In other words, if we say ‘it’s fine for the gays to live lesser laws now and not go to the temple because they can change in the next life’ I guarantee you lots of our non-gay members will say ‘me too; I don’t need to live temple standards here; I’ll just change in the next life.’  

What do you mean by creating a 'lesser space' for LGBTQ+ members? My initial reaction is that is not the Lord's way. From D&C 38:

23 But, verily I say unto you, ^ateach one another according to the office wherewith I have appointed you;

24 And let every man ^aesteem his brother as himself, and practice ^bvirtue and holiness before me.

25 And again I say unto you, let every man esteem his ^abrother as himself.

26 For what man among you having twelve sons, and is no respecter of them, and they serve him obediently, and he saith unto the one: Be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here; and to the other: Be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there—and looketh upon his sons and saith I am ^ajust?

27 Behold, this I have given unto you as a parable, and it is even as I am. I say unto you, be ^aone; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.

[ttribe]

21 hours ago, filovirus said:

OK. But this is a site where we discuss things pertaining to scripture, and so I would only assume that using the scriptures as a guide would be OK. It is clear that our two understandings of the BoM are not similar.

For us to come to discuss better in the future, it might behoove us to understand each other better. I am a believing Latter Day Saint. I believe in God, the scriptures, and ongoing revelation. I know you have a PhD in some form of science (sorry, I don't remember exactly which field). Do you also believe in God? And if so, do you believe that he has revealed many of his words to prophets?

"your tortured reasoning" - No need to be testy

I'm not being testy. My choice of phrasing there was both colorful and accurate.

[SwedishLDS]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

God seems to lag well behind human progression and social evolution.

God is the author of human rights and dignity

[MrShorty]

42 minutes ago, SwedishLDS said:

God is the author of human rights and dignity

I would agree. The thing I see looking at these particular issues is that God seems to be unable or unwilling sometimes to assert His authorship and force His people to follow His principles of human rights and dignity. Slavery was accepted by God's people throughout Biblical times (only the Nephites seemed to have gone full abolitionist during these times) and continued throughout Christendom until the 17th or 18th centuries (during the apostasy when revelation, if it exists, is following a different model than what we claim to use in the modern Church) when abolition movement really started to gain traction in the western world. What is our model of scripture and prophets and revelation that explains why God sometimes does not enforce His authorship on people and lets them do something so contrary to what He has authored (assuming we fully understand in the 21st century what God has authored)?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, SwedishLDS said:

God is the author of human rights and dignity

 

47 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I would agree. The thing I see looking at these particular issues is that God seems to be unable or unwilling sometimes to assert His authorship and force His people to follow His principles of human rights and dignity. Slavery was accepted by God's people throughout Biblical times (only the Nephites seemed to have gone full abolitionist during these times) and continued throughout Christendom until the 17th or 18th centuries (during the apostasy when revelation, if it exists, is following a different model than what we claim to use in the modern Church) when abolition movement really started to gain traction in the western world. What is our model of scripture and prophets and revelation that explains why God sometimes does not enforce His authorship on people and lets them do something so contrary to what He has authored (assuming we fully understand in the 21st century what God has authored)?

I believe this can be understood in terms of the principle of moral agency,* of which God is also the author. 

*Moral agency is summarized in these words to one of our hymns: 

Know this that every soul is free

To choose his life and what he’ll be, 

For this eternal truth is given

That God will force no man to heaven. 

Edited April 14, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

42 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I would agree. The thing I see looking at these particular issues is that God seems to be unable or unwilling sometimes to assert His authorship and force His people to follow His principles of human rights and dignity. Slavery was accepted by God's people throughout Biblical times (only the Nephites seemed to have gone full abolitionist during these times) and continued throughout Christendom until the 17th or 18th centuries (during the apostasy when revelation, if it exists, is following a different model than what we claim to use in the modern Church) when abolition movement really started to gain traction in the western world. What is our model of scripture and prophets and revelation that explains why God sometimes does not enforce His authorship on people and lets them do something so contrary to what He has authored (assuming we fully understand in the 21st century what God has authored)?

I think the fundamental model is that life is a probationary state for agency, where people have to do the best with what they have to work with (faith). Grace by virtue of the Lord's atonement makes up the difference in the long run, at the end of the test. There are micro-tests within tests within the overarching test, enough to see how this model works over and over within a lifetime. This means is God doing His best with what he has to work with: the faith and understanding that exists among His children, and His children doing their best with the light they have been given or are willing / able to receive. Since it is a long test, He won't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Why did He allow slavery? because His children chose it. Why did He restore the Gospel within a slave-holding nation? because the nation eventually repented of it and served as a base for the promulgation of the Gospel worldwide, which is His aim.

Why does He not restore everything to perfection at once? see the creation account. Why did He allow the need for a restoration in the first place? because His children chose it.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Except continuing revelation can change any doctrine apparently.  Or so I'm frequently told by faithful members.

It's funny, when they changed things I think should never have been changed I'm told I'm ignoring their keys, continuing revelation, and prophetic calling.

But if anyone suggests they might change something others disagree with, well that could never happen.

There's a lot of double standard setting of stakes it seems.  It's all changeable until it's something we don't want changed.

From the quote I cited earlier:

“Central to God’s plan, the doctrine of marriage between a man and woman is an integral teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and will not change.”

I draw your attention to the use of the word integral. I believe it to be well chosen. It implies that to remove or disavow this teaching would do violence to the doctrinal integrity of the Church (violence which, I argue, would be fatal). By contrast, the changes you continually complain about pertain to things that are not doctrinally integral — at least not to the extent that the teaching about marriage between a man and a woman is doctrinally integral. (Integral and integrity have the same root.)

Edited April 14, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I think it would be great for Christ to have been married in mortality, but the scriptures don’t state this, so I don’t believe someone should claim they do.  Point to things that you think hint at it, sure.  Declare it as definite, no.

As to fulfilling all righteousness, since he was an example of someone receiving an ordinance while living, why couldn’t he also serve as an example of someone who fulfills all righteousness through proxy ordinances?

If exaltation actually requires being eternally married, then Christ could not have entered into his exaltation if he wasn't.  All blessings are contingent on obedience to law, Christ is no exception as he showed with baptism.  He didn't need baptism but he obeyed the law.
I don't believe for a second that Christ is waiting to receive his exaltation.  In fact, I believe he is the first to receive the blessing of exaltation from this earth.  So yes, I 100% believe Christ is married.

[rongo]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

From the quote I cited earlier:

“Central to God’s plan, the doctrine of marriage between a man and woman is an integral teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and will not change.”

I draw your attention to the use of the word integral. I believe it to be well chosen. It implies that to remove or disavow this teaching would do violence to the doctrinal integrity of the Church (violence which, I argue, would be fatal). By contrast, the changes you continually complain about are not doctrinally integral — at least not to the extent that the teaching about marriage between a man and a woman is doctrinally integral. (Integral and integrity have the same root.)

That can be a moving target with future administrations and cohorts of leaders, though. If it is determined down the road that such changes are not integral --- would not do violence to the doctrinal integrity of the Church --- then such changes may possibly be made. 

The disavowal of explanations for the priesthood ban is an example of this. Many of those who made them or gave full-throated endorsements or defenses of them certainly regarded them as "integral" --- with the disavowal of them "doing violence to the doctrinal integrity of the Church." That many today disagree with this doesn't change the fact that it required a pooh-poohing of these concerns. Paul Reeve's disavowal was simply accepted without any explanation of what we should make of the past and current explanations then. 

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Regardless of origin or context, the statement is perfectly true.. 

I really would not want to worship such a fickle and capricious being as a God.  I don't think such a God exists.

Edited April 14, 2022 by Teancum

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Because both what we call human progression and social evolution are actually neither progress nor evolution.

Sure it is.  THere are a lot of things that were done in the name of religion that have we have progressed beyond. Slavery, women as chattel of men, priesthood ban for the church, recognizing that homsexual behavior for some is normal and not a sin, the idea that monarchies are God ordained, and so on. Lots of good stuff that religion tends to cling to for quite a while before coming around. Though there are still many religions stuck in the past.  Conservative Christianity in America or example-those who want to have laws to force their dogma on the general public.

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

God's going to have an interesting time undoing much of our progress in the end.

Hardly.  Your God is behind the time.  He can learn from us.

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

That can be a moving target with future administrations and cohorts of leaders, though. If it is determined down the road that such changes are not integral --- would not do violence to the doctrinal integrity of the Church --- then such changes may possibly be made. 

The disavowal of explanations for the priesthood ban is an example of this. Many of those who made them or gave full-throated endorsements or defenses of them certainly regarded them as "integral" --- with the disavowal of them "doing violence to the doctrinal integrity of the Church." That many today disagree with this doesn't change the fact that it required a pooh-poohing of these concerns. Paul Reeve's disavowal was simply accepted without any explanation of what we should make of the past and current explanations then. 

I fervently believe that the doctrine pertaining to marriage will never be determined “down the road” to be not integral. I have greater faith in God and His chosen servants than that. Some people here got mad at me the other day when I compared it to the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, but I stand by my comparison. Both teachings are equally integral to the doctrinal structure of the Church. Remove either one and the Church would cease to exist as the fold of Christ. 
 

And ill-considered theories of yesteryear about the reason for the priesthood ban were never promulgated with the authority and solidarity that the Lord’s law of matrimony is today. That is a weak comparison. 

Edited April 14, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

From the quote I cited earlier:

“Central to God’s plan, the doctrine of marriage between a man and woman is an integral teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and will not change.”

I draw your attention to the use of the word integral. I believe it to be well chosen. It implies that to remove or disavow this teaching would do violence to the doctrinal integrity of the Church (violence which, I argue, would be fatal). By contrast, the changes you continually complain about pertain to things that are not doctrinally integral — at least not to the extent that the teaching about marriage between a man and a woman is doctrinally integral. (Integral and integrity have the same root.)

That quote is meaningless to the conversation in the Church today.

• ""You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world." - Bruce R. McConkie.

It doesn't matter what President Oaks said.  If a new revelation is claimed it won't matter one iota.  Personally, I'd believe the revelation to be false, but your argument has been rendered meaningless by precedent.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I fervently believe that the doctrine pertaining to marriage will never be determined “down the road” to be not integral. I have greater faith in God and His chosen servants than that. 
And ill-considered theories of yesteryear about the reason for the priesthood ban were never promulgated with the authority and solidarity that the Lord’s law of matrimony is today. That is a weak comparison. 

I hope you're right.
I suspect you aren't.