Family proclamation founded on irrevocable doctrine: President Oaks

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

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

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, SwedishLDS said:

God is the author of human rights and dignity

No he is not. Humans are.  God is created in the image of humans.  and if God really is the author of human rights and dignity he has done a crappy job with teaching it. In fact much of his so called scripture thwarts human rights and dignity.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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

Be not faithless, but be believing. 

[Teancum]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

If he exists I am sure he is laughing a lot about a lot of things.  Mormonism among them.

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

don't believe for a second that Christ is waiting to receive his exaltation

No reason to imagine he is waiting for proxy work on someone establishing a genealogical link.  He could have asked anyone after his death and the death of the woman who agree to be his wife to do the ordinance.  Could have been the day after his death.

Edited April 14, 2022 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

No reason to imagine he is waiting for proxy work on someone establishing a genealogical link.  He could have asked anyone after his death and the death of the woman who agree to be his wife to do the ordinance.  Could have been the day after his death.

D&C 131:1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this border of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];
3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

So yes, Christ's marriage could have occurred at any point.  But if he is inheriting the Father's kingdom he is married, no matter when.
And as always:

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Be not faithless, but be believing. 

I believe the greatest predictor of future action is past action.

[Navidad]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I believe the greatest predictor of future action is past action.

I believe the greatest predictor of future action is putting into place all you have consciously and deliberately learned since your last mistake.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

But if he is inheriting the Father's kingdom he is married, no matter when.
And as always:

I thought the debate was whether he married in mortality.  Did I miss something (add it to the list, my gosh!  What a week)?

[pogi]

44 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I believe the greatest predictor of future action is putting into place all you have consciously and deliberately learned since your last mistake.

This requires that someone first admit that they have made a mistake.  With that, we resort back to - if past human behavior is any indicator... 

Edited April 14, 2022 by pogi

[JLHPROF]

31 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I believe the greatest predictor of future action is putting into place all you have consciously and deliberately learned since your last mistake.

Ah, but the Church never makes mistakes in doctrine or policy.  

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

I thought the debate was whether he married in mortality.  Did I miss something (add it to the list, my gosh!  What a week)?

I believe he married in mortality.  You proposed an alternative.  I'm saying it's within possibility but not probable in my opinion.

In my opinion based on the available evidence Christ was married to Mary, Martha, and Mary Magadelene.  Others disagree.  I don't have an issue with those who disagree.
Those believing saints who object to the very idea of Christ being married in mortality I do have an issue with.  Marriage is a requirement in our religion - Christ obeyed every law and commandment.

Edited April 14, 2022 by JLHPROF

[MrShorty]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Why did He allow slavery? because His children chose it.

Why does He allow us to reject same sex marriage? Could it be because we collectively choose it?

I agree that agency is a good explanation for these issues. The problem I see is, if our or the leaders' agency can effectively block revelation from God, how do we know when our own beliefs and choices are blocking current revelation? This is why I have a problem with the certainty Pres. Oaks uses in this talk. That kind of certainty seems able to block new revelation. He personally must be very sure that there is no revelation to change that, but I see many otherwise active and faithful members of the Church who don't believe this can't change.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, MrShorty said:

Why does He allow us to reject same sex marriage? Could it be because we collectively choose it?

Because it's sin, and God cannot look upon sin with any degree of allowance.  Just because we are able to...

Quote

The problem I see is, if our or the leaders' agency can effectively block revelation from God, how do we know when our own beliefs and choices are blocking current revelation? 

There's truth to this issue with revelation, but again God has already given plenty of revelation on marriage.  A whole bunch of them.  Along with prophetic teachings, the words of Christ, and more.
Joseph taught it is a sin to inquire for more revelation when there are existing revelations to suit the purpose.  That causes the opposite issue - permissive revelation resulting in lost blessings.  We don't want to force that to happen.

Quote

He personally must be very sure that there is no revelation to change that, but I see many otherwise active and faithful members of the Church who don't believe this can't change.

Again, we are able to look on sin with allowance.  Probably because we're all sinners.

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

This is why I have a problem with the certainty Pres. Oaks uses in this talk. That kind of certainty seems able to block new revelation. He personally must be very sure that there is no revelation to change that, but I see many otherwise active and faithful members of the Church who don't believe this can't change.

It’s not just President Oaks, as I’ve shown with my quote from the “Same-Sex Attraction” web site. That quote shows that the immutability of the doctrine that marriage is only between a man and a woman is a standard teaching of the Church. 
 

I come back to the word integral. Some people here got triggered when I compared it to the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, but I couldn’t think of a clearer way to convey the integral nature of the teaching about marriage within the doctrinal structure of the Church. No faithful Church member would reasonably entertain the notion that the Church might one day rescind its central teaching that Christ is divine. 

Edited April 14, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s not just President Oaks, as I’ve shown with my quote from the “Same-Sex Attraction” web site. That quote shows that the immutability of the doctrine that marriage is only between a man and a woman is a standard teaching of the Church. 
 

I come back to the word integral. Some people here got triggered when I compared it to the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, but I couldn’t think of a clearer way to convey the integral nature of the teaching about marriage within the doctrinal structure of the Church. No faithful Church member would reasonably entertain the notion that the Church might one day rescind its central teaching that Christ is divine. 

'No True Scotsman' fallacy, Exhibit A.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No faithful Church member would reasonably entertain the notion that the Church might one day rescind its central teaching that Christ is divine. 

The early Christian Church 200 years after Christ debated exactly this.
We are 200 years past the restoration of the Church.

Never say  never.

[Navidad]

33 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Ah, but the Church never makes mistakes in doctrine or policy.  

Maybe once and a while in dogma????

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

Why does He allow us to reject same sex marriage? Could it be because we collectively choose it?

I agree that agency is a good explanation for these issues. The problem I see is, if our or the leaders' agency can effectively block revelation from God, how do we know when our own beliefs and choices are blocking current revelation? This is why I have a problem with the certainty Pres. Oaks uses in this talk. That kind of certainty seems able to block new revelation. He personally must be very sure that there is no revelation to change that, but I see many otherwise active and faithful members of the Church who don't believe this can't change.

Assuming an underlying repentant, good-faith effort, I think the problem of blocked revelation as a consequence of agency is resolved by exercising faith in time (“mine [the Lord’s] own due time”) and exercising charity in the meantime (“wait upon the Lord”). The problem of having a problem with others’ agency and certainty is secondary to having a problem with one’s own (the beam and mote lesson). I think that if we are certain that this attitude is Christlike, I think we will be open to new revelation that corrects any certainties of which He does not approve (typically the "One thing thou lackest" -- maybe two!).

I think when people feel unsettled, ungrounded or at enmity with others on a particular point, they can know that revelation on that point is blocked; likewise, when they feel they have to rationalize, justify or leverage these feelings. I also think that people can disagree with prophets who speak with certainty on a particular point, without having such contrary feelings.

Edited April 14, 2022 by CV75

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

So God gave 10 commandments supposedly.  The first number of them were egocentric commanding humans total devotion to God.  One would think that if this God needed such obeisance he could have said something like hey you know that slavery thing.  It is bad. Don't do it.  So sorry I guess I am not buying your argument. 

10 hours ago, Calm said:

 

 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.

Seems to me the example from God has been lacking and even in some cases the example was bad.  Like him killing all but 8 humans in a flood.

[filovirus]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So God gave 10 commandments supposedly.  The first number of them were egocentric commanding humans total devotion to God.  One would think that if this God needed such obeisance he could have said something like hey you know that slavery thing.  It is bad. Don't do it.  So sorry I guess I am not buying your argument. 

Seems to me the example from God has been lacking and even in some cases the example was bad.  Like him killing all but 8 humans in a flood.

So, for next weeks "Come Follow Me" lesson, it looks at the ten commandments. I was reading a little bit further regarding the covenant that the people of Israel were making. It spoke a lot about selling of a daughter for wife, and that this could end up in a plural marriage. It also talked about slavery, and after 7 years they are to go free. It also mentions that the owner of a slave could beat the slave, but not to death. Such a different world.

Does anybody know what slavery was like to the early Hebrews? I am not up on my bible culture history. Was it similar to the type of slavery that black people went through up until 150 years ago?

[rongo]

11 minutes ago, filovirus said:

So, for next weeks "Come Follow Me" lesson, it looks at the ten commandments. I was reading a little bit further regarding the covenant that the people of Israel were making. It spoke a lot about selling of a daughter for wife, and that this could end up in a plural marriage. It also talked about slavery, and after 7 years they are to go free. It also mentions that the owner of a slave could beat the slave, but not to death. Such a different world.

Does anybody know what slavery was like to the early Hebrews? I am not up on my bible culture history. Was it similar to the type of slavery that black people went through up until 150 years ago?

Slaves were set free during the year of jubilee (every 50 years). Debts were also erased, and land reverted back to the original family who owned it. 

[MrShorty]

2 hours ago, filovirus said:

Does anybody know what slavery was like to the early Hebrews?

Ben Spackman's Gospel Doctrine essay on Philemon suggests that, while ancient slavery may have lacked a racial component, it was otherwise generally just as dehumanizing as modern slavery. https://benspackman.com/2019/11/gospel-doctrine-lesson-40-colossians-and-philippians-but-mostly-philemon/ If someone has additional information, I would be interested, but there seems to be solid evidence that ancient slavery was not pleasant (and immoral for the purposes of this discussion??). The usual defenses of slavery that I see revolve around economic necessity (someone upthread mentioned what to do with POWs and how slavery may be necessary).

On this issue, I agree with @Teancum. If Moses was really receiving direct revelation from God and had no personal agenda, it should have been easy (especially in light of their recent escape from slavery) for God to say slavery is wrong. People should not own other people. If economic necessity requires slavery, let's change our economic system (maybe God could even help develop the system) so that slaves are not necessary.

In the end, I think Spackman best captures the problem (in the paragraph leading with a bolded "The Problem..." (I'll let you read on Spackman's page so you can see it in context)). I keep coming back to, if God could tolerate slavery for most of human history, then it seems like God could tolerate same sex marriages.

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

So God gave 10 commandments supposedly.  The first number of them were egocentric commanding humans total devotion to God.  One would think that if this God needed such obeisance he could have said something like hey you know that slavery thing.  It is bad. Don't do it.  So sorry I guess I am not buying your argument. 

Seems to me the example from God has been lacking and even in some cases the example was bad.  Like him killing all but 8 humans in a flood.

Am I correct in the assumption that you’ve never read Moses 7? In that chapter of the Pearl of Great Price, God and all the hosts of heaven weep floods of heart wrenching tears because nearly all the inhabitants of the earth at the time of the flood had become so desperately wicked that God had no choice but to destroy them in the flesh, and consign their spirits to the spirit prison, lest they be permitted to further damn themselves until they would finally place themselves everlastingly beyond the reach of Christ’s redemptive power? The account goes on to testify that the flood was a great act of redeeming love and mercy that was only carried out because of divine compassion. And though God recoiled in horror at the thought of having to carry it out his decree, he went ahead and did what he knew he had to do because it was the only way his children of that day of unparalleled wickedness could  eventually repent and be saved in a heavenly kingdom of glory in the end.

Hopefully you will read the following passages and cease your disrespect in suggesting that God the Latter-Day Saints honor worship is a cruel and callous being:

25 And he (Enoch) saw angels descending out of heaven; and he heard a loud voice saying: Wo, wo be unto the inhabitants of the earth.
26 And he beheld Satan; and he had a great chain in his hand, and it veiled the whole face of the earth with darkness; and he looked up and laughed, and his angels rejoiced.
27 And Enoch beheld angels descending out of heaven, bearing testimony of the Father and Son; and the Holy Ghost fell on many, and they were caught up by the powers of heaven into Zion.
28 And it came to pass that the God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people, and he wept; and Enoch bore record of it, saying: How is it that the heavens weep, and shed forth their tears as the rain upon the mountains?
29 And Enoch said unto the Lord: How is it that thou canst weep, seeing thou art holy, and from all eternity to all eternity?
30 And were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations; and thy curtains are stretched out still; and yet thou art there, and thy bosom is there; and also thou art just; thou art merciful and kind forever;
31 And thou hast taken Zion to thine own bosom, from all thy creations, from all eternity to all eternity; and naught but peace, justice, and truth is the habitation of thy throne; and mercy shall go before thy face and have no end; how is it thou canst weep?

32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;
33 And unto thy brethren have I said, and also given commandment, that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father; but behold, they are without affection, and they hate their own blood;
34 And the fire of mine indignation is kindled against them; and in my hot displeasure will I send in the floods upon them, for my fierce anger is kindled against them.
35 Behold, I am God; Man of Holiness is my name; Man of Counsel is my name; and Endless and Eternal is my name, also.
36 Wherefore, I can stretch forth mine hands and hold all the creations which I have made; and mine eye can pierce them also, and among all the workmanship of mine hands there has not been so great wickedness as among thy brethren.
37 But behold, their sins shall be upon the heads of their fathers; Satan shall be their father, and misery shall be their doom; and the whole heavens shall weep over them, even all the workmanship of mine hands; wherefore should not the heavens weep, seeing these shall suffer?
38 But behold, these which thine eyes are upon shall perish in the floods; and behold, I will shut them up; a prison have I prepared for them.
39 And that which I have chosen (Christ) hath pled before my face. Wherefore, he suffereth for their sins; inasmuch as they will repent in the day that my Chosen shall return unto me, and until that day they shall be in torment;
40 Wherefore, for this shall the heavens weep, yea, and all the workmanship of mine hands.

 

Edited April 15, 2022 by teddyaware

[let’s roll]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

So God gave 10 commandments supposedly.  The first number of them were egocentric commanding humans total devotion to God.  One would think that if this God needed such obeisance he could have said something like hey you know that slavery thing.  It is bad. Don't do it.  So sorry I guess I am not buying your argument.

I’m sorry if you’re going through a bad stretch.  I think you’ll agree with me that you’re better than your last few posts on this thread.  I hope that things take a turn for the better for you.

Regards.