Jump to content

Family proclamation founded on irrevocable doctrine: President Oaks


Recommended Posts

Nothing I have seen in the above arguments convinces me that the eternal principle of marriage between a man and woman is endangered by gay marriage.  For a heterosexual, cisgender member of the Church, the proclamation on the family feels to me like an eternal principle.  Since 80% to 90% of God's children are heterosexual and cisgender I believe that what the Church now teaches is pretty much 100% correct for those members and assures procreation on this earth.  I don't not believe that the Church nor any of its leaders have received any revelation on queer members as it relates to their eternal possibilities.  President Oaks formed an opinion long ago that excludes queer individuals from God kingdom on the earth.  I am assuming it is based on his fear that allowing a place for queer individuals in the Church would destroy the Church.  Once again, I would love for someone to explain in detail how allowing gay marriage and gender transitioning would destroy the Church.  The only thing I can come up with is bigoted members who dislike queer individuals and would refuse to accept them make up such a large portion of Church membership that when they all left, the Church would collapse somehow.

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

We have been commanded to repent. What did Christ repent of?

He repented of shrinking from his  all important duty to follow through with the infinite and eternal atoning atoning sacrifice for sin by drinking to the dregs the bitter cup of God’s wrath. The atoning sacrifice could not be properly endured and consummated unless Christ’s will and the Father’s will were the same. But in weakness the Christ admitted that his will and his Father’s will were not one and the same, and as a consequence the Father showed great mercy by sending an angel from heaven to bless and strengthen the Christ so that his will and his Father’s will could become one and the same. It’s important to realize that it wasn’t until the Lord stopped pleading with his Father to remove the bitter that the will of the Son was finally swallowed up completely in the will of the Father, and this so that an effective atoning sacrifice could commence. It also needs to be understood that it wasn’t until the will of the Father became the will of the Son that the Lord began to shed his precious atoning blood in the garden of Gethsemane.

Edited by teddyaware
Link to comment
14 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Am I correct in the assumption that you’ve never read Moses 7?

No.  Teddy old boy, I am as well versed in Mormonism and its doctrine as you are. I am a life long member, was an avid student of the scripture, doctrine and history.

 

14 hours ago, teddyaware said:

 

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,

No Choice?  Why?  My son was a really difficult and rebellious teen.  But i never felt like I needed to kill him over it.  Dude, God always has a choice.  You think he can command and revoke at his will.  Make something that was abominable ok if he wants. Try to stay consistent.

 

14 hours ago, teddyaware said:

 

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.

Yea, most rational thinkers would call that all balony.

14 hours ago, teddyaware said:

 

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.

Your comments would really be quite comical if but for the fact that you really believe this stuff.

14 hours ago, teddyaware said:

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:

Not just the LDS God but the theistic God of Christianity, Judaism and Islam.  While there are varying flavors I think they all seem pretty rotten. Though the LDS version does make strides to improve a bit.  Now the God of Calvinism, that is truly a monster of a god.n But no Teddy. I will continue to point out the inconsistencies, cruelties and bad attributes of any so called god. Maybe it will enlighten someone along the way like I feel I was enlightened.

Edited by Teancum
Link to comment
9 hours ago, let’s roll said:

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.

Well thanks, I guess.  I am just sharing my views.  My bad stretch has nothing to do with it.  If you would like to discuss the specifics of my last few posts rather than make it personal that might be fine. I think my comments are pretty obviously accurate when someone can remove the shackles of their dogma and faith.

 

Edited by Teancum
Link to comment
11 hours ago, MrShorty said:

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.

Slavery was practiced in various forms among the Old Testament covenant people, some of it voluntary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery

I think equating slavery and ssm needs to consider how things were set up in the beginning. Adam and Eve became slaves to the flesh voluntarily, while God set up their marriage long before to that, as a commandment. God did not command slavery (Adam and Eve brought it about). Adam and Eve did not invent marriage; God commanded it. This is why I think God tolerates the inventions of His children given the latitude they possess more than He tolerates their intentional meddling with what He first established, especially for those of His restored kingdom on earth.

Link to comment
19 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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

Never say  never

All religions morph and change over time. Read Ehrman's How Jesus Became God.  Christians adopted doctrine even early that Jesus likely never taught about himself especially the doctrine that he is God.  Mormonism is no different.  BY and JS would be surprised I think at a lot that is in the Church today.  I think you would be one to agree with that.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, teddyaware said:

He repented of shrinking from his  all important duty to follow through with the infinite and eternal atoning atoning sacrifice for sin by drinking to the dregs the bitter cup of God’s wrath. The atoning sacrifice could not be properly endured and consummated unless Christ’s will and the Father’s will were the same. But in weakness the Christ admitted that his will and his Father’s will were not one and the same, and as a consequence the Father showed great mercy by sending an angel from heaven to bless and strengthen the Christ so that his will and his Father’s will could become one and the same. It’s important to realize that it wasn’t until the Lord stopped pleading with his Father to remove the bitter that the will of the Son was finally swallowed up completely in the will of the Father, and this so that an effective atoning sacrifice could commence. It also needs to be understood that it wasn’t until the will of the Father became the will of the Son that the Lord began to shed his precious atoning blood in the garden of Gethsemane.

So Christ sinned?

Link to comment
21 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

Question for you.  It seem to me that both the NT and theBoM as well as much of the D&C teaches Christ was a God, or even God, one with the Father in some way or another, and this all before he was born. I believe in Philippians ( I would need to look up the verse) it says Christ emptied himself of his Goodhood and did not think it a thing to be grasped, became human and did so to redeem humans.  So if Jesus was God, and exalted before he was born he -:

1: Did not need a body to obtain godhood-think about the HG here as well.

2: Did not need to be married to obtain godhood in his mortal life as he was already God or a god.

Thoughts?

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Teancum said:

1: Did not need a body to obtain godhood-think about the HG here as well.

He was God, but not exalted. 

There is another possibility, which I have heard of and am open to, but do not necessarily subscribe to.  The idea is that Jesus, like the Father had lived a mortal life on another world and was married and exalted.  In our pre-earth life, He gave up his resurrected body, to aid the Father in His plan for us and came to our earth as a mortal again.  This would negate his need to be married in this world.

Quote

2: Did not need to be married to obtain godhood in his mortal life as he was already God or a god.

I believe he was not exalted until after His resurrection and ascension to the Father.  I am open to the possibility that He was married in mortality, and if I had to choose one or the other, I would say, yes.  However, I don't think it was necessary for Him to have been married while on earth, if it was His primary mission to come to earth to make an atonement and establish His church, then it is consistent with Church doctrine that his marriage could have happened in the next life.

Edited by T-Shirt
Link to comment
13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

We have been commanded to repent. What did Christ repent of?

We have been commanded to “be ye therefore perfect” just as God the Father and Christ are perfect. Christ is our perfect example. Repentance is the process to get us there. The fact that Christ took upon him the sins of the world makes him the only one deeply aware of the need for repentance.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, T-Shirt said:

He was God, but not exalted. 

How can he be God but not exalted?

1 hour ago, T-Shirt said:

There is another possibility, which I have heard of and am open to, but do not necessarily subscribe to.  The idea is that Jesus, like the Father had lived a mortal life on another world and was married and exalted.  In our pre-earth life, He gave up his resurrected body, to aid the Father in His plan for us and came to our earth as a mortal again.  This would negate his need to be married in this world.

Oh my....

1 hour ago, T-Shirt said:

I believe he was not exalted until after His resurrection and ascension to the Father.  I am open to the possibility that He was married in mortality, and if I had to choose one or the other, I would say, yes.  However, I don't think it was necessary for Him to have been married while on earth, if it was His primary mission to come to earth to make an atonement and establish His church, then it is consistent with Church doctrine that his marriage could have happened in the next life.

Seems like in LDS doctrine to be God you have to be exalted.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Teancum said:

How can he be God but not exalted?

Oh my....

Seems like in LDS doctrine to be God you have to be exalted.

Incorrect. All the Standard Works testify that Jesus Christ was the Eternal God while he dwelt on earth in the flesh. The scriptures abundantly testify that the Spirit that inhabited the earthly body of Jesus of Nazareth was the Spirit of the Eternal God, even he who was known as Jehovah prior to the time that he was made incarnate. Just because the Spirit of the Eternal God was clothed in a human body doesn’t mean that the body somehow canceled out and destroyed the eternal divine nature of the Spirit whom of Christ. Was.

In addition, the atonement could only be accomplished by means of the shed blood and death the Christ. God had to take on a body of flesh and blood, and sacrifice his spotless life, in order to save us. This is all basic stuff that’s taught throughout the scriptures and so easy to grasp that even a young child can understand it. But without the holy, indwelling influence of the Spirit of God, the things of God can never be understood.  And so here we are…

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. (Mosiah 15)

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Incorrect. All the Standard Works testify that Jesus Christ was the Eternal God while he dwelt on earth in the flesh. The scriptures abundantly testify that the Spirit that inhabited the earthly body of Jesus of Nazareth was the Spirit of the Eternal God, even he who was known as Jehovah prior to the time that he was made incarnate. Just because the Spirit of the Eternal God was clothed in a human body doesn’t mean that the body somehow canceled out and destroyed the eternal divine nature of the Spirit whom of Christ. Was.

In addition, the atonement could only be accomplished by means of the shed blood and death the Christ. God had to take on a body of flesh and blood, and sacrifice his spotless life, in order to save us. This is all basic stuff that’s taught throughout the scriptures and so easy to grasp that even a young child can understand it. But without the holy, indwelling influence of the Spirit of God, the things of God can never be understood.  And so here we are…

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. (Mosiah 15)

Wow, this is downright Evangelical! 😃

Link to comment
17 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Nothing I have seen in the above arguments convinces me that the eternal principle of marriage between a man and woman is endangered by gay marriage.  For a heterosexual, cisgender member of the Church, the proclamation on the family feels to me like an eternal principle.  Since 80% to 90% of God's children are heterosexual and cisgender I believe that what the Church now teaches is pretty much 100% correct for those members and assures procreation on this earth.  I don't not believe that the Church nor any of its leaders have received any revelation on queer members as it relates to their eternal possibilities.  President Oaks formed an opinion long ago that excludes queer individuals from God kingdom on the earth.  I am assuming it is based on his fear that allowing a place for queer individuals in the Church would destroy the Church.  Once again, I would love for someone to explain in detail how allowing gay marriage and gender transitioning would destroy the Church.  The only thing I can come up with is bigoted members who dislike queer individuals and would refuse to accept them make up such a large portion of Church membership that when they all left, the Church would collapse somehow.

Please explain what you mean by the destruction of the Church, what it has to do with changing the covenants and doctrines, and the policies designed to support them.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
10 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think my comments are pretty obviously accurate when someone can remove the shackles of their dogma and faith.

I acknowledge your comments accurately describe your opinion.  

 

10 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well thanks, I guess.  I am just sharing my views.  My bad stretch has nothing to do with it.  If you would like to discuss the specifics of my last few posts rather than make it personal that might be fine. I think my comments are pretty obviously accurate when someone can remove the shackles of their dogma and faith.

 

I recognize we have different views on faith and Deity which aren’t going to change as a result of discussion.  The sole purpose of my post was to wish you well.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Teancum said:

How can he be God but not exalted?

Seems like in LDS doctrine to be God you have to be exalted.

And to be exalted requires a male/female couple.  To be a God requires husband and wife.

If Christ never married he is not exalted or God.  At least in LDS theology.  He is missing a necessary component of Godhood.

Link to comment
18 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Incorrect. All the Standard Works testify that Jesus Christ was the Eternal God while he dwelt on earth in the flesh.

Yes. God. Thus exalted.

18 hours ago, teddyaware said:

 

he scriptures abundantly testify that the Spirit that inhabited the earthly body of Jesus of Nazareth was the Spirit of the Eternal God, even he who was known as Jehovah prior to the time that he was made incarnate. Just because the Spirit of the Eternal God was clothed in a human body doesn’t mean that the body somehow canceled out and destroyed the eternal divine nature of the Spirit whom of Christ. Was.

I have no idea what this means. But Jesus was God. God, or a god, before he was born.  See this passage:

Philippians 2:6-11 NABRE

Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross. Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Obedience and Service in the World.

 

18 hours ago, teddyaware said:

In addition, the atonement could only be accomplished by means of the shed blood and death the Christ. God had to take on a body of flesh and blood, and sacrifice his spotless life, in order to save us. This is all basic stuff that’s taught throughout the scriptures and so easy to grasp that even a young child can understand it. But without the holy, indwelling influence of the Spirit of God, the things of God can never be understood.  And so here we are…

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. (Mosiah 15)

Yes thank you.  YOu bollster mhy point. Jesus was God before his mortal life God's are exalted. Thus Jesus was exalted before his mortal life. WIthout a body and without a wife.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, let’s roll said:

I acknowledge your comments accurately describe your opinion.  

 

I recognize we have different views on faith and Deity which aren’t going to change as a result of discussion.  The sole purpose of my post was to wish you well.

Ok then thank you. I wish you well also.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

And to be exalted requires a male/female couple.  To be a God requires husband and wife.

If Christ never married he is not exalted or God.  At least in LDS theology.  He is missing a necessary component of Godhood.

Yes. But Jesus was God before he entered mortal life. Thus exalted.  Was he married before his mortal life?

Link to comment
On 4/16/2022 at 10:09 AM, Teancum said:

Yes. But Jesus was God before he entered mortal life. Thus exalted.  Was he married before his mortal life?

That's a fun bit of LDS doctrinal speculation.  There are teachings that imply our family units were formed in the premortal existence and a ton of questions that idea would raise.

From President John Taylor's "Origin and Destiny of Woman".

"Thou being willing and anxious to imitate them, waiting and desirous to obtain a body, a resurrection and exaltation also, and having obtained permission, madest a covenant with one of thy kindred spirits to be thy guardian angel while in mortality, also with two others, male and female spirits, that thou wouldst come and take a tabernacle through their lineage, and become one of their offspring. You also chose a kindred spirit whom you loved in the spirit world to be your head, stay, husband and protector on the earth and to exalt you in eternal worlds. All these were arranged, likewise the spirits that should tabernacle through your lineage. … Leaving thy father and mother’s bosom and all thy kindred spirits thou camest to earth, took a tabernacle and imitated the deeds of those who had been exalted before you."

 

Premortal family covenants?  Maybe.

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

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