Family proclamation founded on irrevocable doctrine: President Oaks

[SwedishLDS]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You are seriously wondering why people are not excited by a “separate but not equal” afterlife?

same sex attraction does not exist in the afterlife https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm seriously wondering why people think a revelation allowing sin will ever be given.

and homosexuals who lived 1500 years ago, now dead, are told what in the next life? they didn't know anything about any test of mortality. Like Elder Renlund said when you don't have revelation you are left with reason and who's reasoning should we listen to?

[Fether]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Don't forget the limitations that come with that.

"D&C 131:4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase."

"D&C 132:16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever."

 

Yep! The full glory of God is saved for those that obey and enter into the new and everlasting covenants of God.

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He just said it in Sunday PM session. He affirmed the proclamation is not just “changeable policy.”

I think this needs to be re-emphasized from time to time. I welcome President Oaks’s affirmation. 

Yes he did.  Seems like LBGT issues are on his mind constantly.  So he double downs frequently on this. I think this affirms for me at least the agreement I have with you.  The church will never consent to same sex marriage in any way as a valid expression of love and commitment. 

[The Nehor]

43 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

I don't have the final answer but I can confidently testify that what the Church is teaching currently is wrong.  God and truth would never create the damage, hurt, broken lives and families that the current teachings create.  My human mind says maybe the other two levels in the Celestial kingdom are for gays and transgender individuals that live worthy lives of love, kindness and love of God.  Such individuals could have full membership and only not have a marriage performed in the temple.

While part of me hopes you are right I don’t find this train of reasoning convincing. The idea that God would not create damage, hurt, broken lives, and broken families seems to ignore all the other things God allows. Some people are born psychopaths and are dangerous to everyone around them. Some are born with or early on develop unsatisfiable sexual desires or desires that are inherently predatory. It seems the Light of Christ missed a few people. Some are born to face intense and ongoing agony for most of their life. Many are physically, mentally, and emotionally crippled. Many are born into slavery with no real hope of escape or a better life and never get the opportunity to be raised by a family or form their own. I have a hard time buying that a God that is okay with all of that will arbitrarily declare that the pain of denied companionship in this life is a line in the sand. I believe God is just. I believe God loves us. I have a harder time believing that God is kind. The response is that the gospel of Jesus Christ will fix it. Usually though that repair does not show up in mortality.

I have to admit I find myself treating some of the statements in the Family Proclamation as dubious. Here is an obvious example:

“Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.”

I really wonder about the wording of that line. They are entitled to it yet a lot of them aren’t given it. A lot of that is due to human sin but a significant number of children throughout history don’t get it because mom dies in childbirth because God designed or allowed the birthing process to be very dangerous. Add to that that dad dies in battle or whatever so you are entitled to be born into a happy home but even the most devoted and loving parents don’t always get to provide what their children are entitled to. God knows what He is sending his children to endure but God sends them anyways. I have said before that if God showed up in a US family court and explained that he entrusted his children to the care of parents He knew would abuse them the court would terminate His parental rights. Cut and dried case of unfit parenting. So in what sense are children entitled to this? The nature of reality often means they do not get their entitlement and human error denies most of the rest of them that entitlement. What meaning of the word “entitled” were they going with here? Reality suggests this is the best case but most people won’t get it.

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, SwedishLDS said:

same sex attraction does not exist in the afterlife https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

Elder Oaks really quoted this scripture when discussing homosexuality?

“There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man”

It is one of the few sins that a majority of the population never feel a temptation to indulge in and you go with that scripture? C’mon………

[Meadowchik]

49 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The old "my God wouldn't do that" trope.  Making God in our image.
 

In addition to my initial reply:

Calling the other posters point a trope like that really is dismissive.

Imagine that the same things that affirm to you that truth is truth, good is good, and God is God also tells you God wouldn't do a thing. This wouldn't be shallow, rather it's at the very heart of spirituality, at the core of personal conscience and personal integrity.

It's not to be waved away.

Edited April 4, 2022 by Meadowchik

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm seriously wondering why people think a revelation allowing sin will ever be given.

Wonder no more. It already happened:

“Nephi, murder that man.”

”Abraham, perform human sacrifice with your son as the offering.”

“Joshua, go into the Promised Land and do some ethnic cleansing.”

“Nephi, if you are obedient and your brothers are not you will lead this people. Ignore the part of the Law of Moses where it specifically says you cannot make exceptions to the firstborn having the right of inheritance.”

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, Fether said:

Yep! The full glory of God is saved for those that obey and enter into the new and everlasting covenants of God.

The full glory of God is saved for eternal family - it's about the perpetuation of the race of the Gods.  Father, Mother, Child.
Anyone unwilling to participate in this work and glory of God is ineligible for exaltation.
God's entire work is having children and leading them to exaltation so they can continue the process.  There is no other role that is God.  It's parenting.  It's multiplying and replenishing.

That's why the revelation is clear "these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation".

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Wonder no more. It already happened:

“Nephi, murder that man.”

”Abraham, perform human sacrifice with your son as the offering.”

“Joshua, go into the Promised Land and do some ethnic cleansing.”

“Nephi, if you are obedient and your brothers are not you will lead this people. Ignore the part of the Law of Moses where it specifically says you cannot make exceptions to the firstborn having the right of inheritance.”

Good point.

Bring on the revelation to fornicate, rape, murder, pillage, abuse.  Apparently there's precedent.

Edited April 4, 2022 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, Duncan said:

and homosexuals who lived 1500 years ago, now dead, are told what in the next life? they didn't know anything about any test of mortality. Like Elder Renlund said when you don't have revelation you are left with reason and who's reasoning should we listen to?

That's why we have work for the dead.
I'm sure there's a whole lot of teaching and correction that is made after death.  And a whole lot of repentance of sins committed in ignorance.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Here are some headlines from his talk:

Mormon leader reaffirms church's opposition to same-sex marriage
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/07/mormon-leader-oaks-church-opposition-gay-marriage

Oh wait, no, that was from 2013.

Mormon leaders decry same-sex marriage and 'counterfeit lifestyles'
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/04/mormon-leaders-same-sex-marriage

No, that one was 2015

Mormon Leader Reaffirms Faith's Stance on Same-Sex Marriage
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/09/30/dallin-h-oaks-mormon-gay-marriage-opposition/

Mormon opposition to gay marriage will never change, says apostle Oaks, citing ‘statement of eternal truth’
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/09/30/mormon-general-conference-resumes-for-the-first-time-monson-will-not-be-attending-any-sessions/

Oops, those are from 2017

Oaks doubles down on LDS Church position on gay marriage, gender identity
https://www.abc4.com/news/local-news/oaks-doubles-down-on-lds-church-position-on-gay-marriage-gender-identity/

Getting closer, this one is from 2018

Mormon leader: Be kind to gays, but don't forget God's laws
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/mormon-leader-be-kind-gays-don-t-forget-god-s-n1063221

Not quite yet, this is from 2019

Why was last week’s speech on LGBTQ rights ‘the most difficult’ of LDS apostle Dallin Oaks’ career?
https://religionnews.com/2021/11/15/why-was-last-weeks-speech-on-lgbtq-rights-the-most-difficult-of-lds-apostle-dallin-oakss-career/

No, that one wasn't a conference talk and was from 2021.

Here we go:

Mormon leader reaffirms faith's stance on same-sex marriage
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/mormon-leader-reaffirms-faiths-stance-sex-marriage-83852258

 

Not knowing if you agree, but enough is enough of this publicity and his bringing it up. It hurts gay members internally, enough of the hurt. They know...they know...

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Good point.

Bring on the revelation to fornicate, rape, murder, pillage, abuse.  Apparently there's precedent.

Yeah, there are many false prophets around teaching that sometimes you may have to break even the general rules that God lays down.

Get a load of this heretic for example:

“That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another. God said thou shalt not kill—at another time he said thou shalt utterly destroy.”
-Joseph Smith

 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, there are many false prophets around teaching that sometimes you may have to break even the general rules that God lays down.

Get a load of this heretic for example:

“That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another. God said thou shalt not kill—at another time he said thou shalt utterly destroy.”
-Joseph Smith

We really have no standard of truth anymore do we.  We'll accept anything as long as someone tells us it's revelation.

I seriously wonder if this is how the early Christian Church entered the dark ages?  Little by little.  Change an ordinance, drop a doctrine, embrace a sin.  Step by step.
At least we have prophecy the Lord won't let it go too far this time.  But agency makes nothing certain.

Edited April 4, 2022 by JLHPROF

[Tacenda]

27 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

While part of me hopes you are right I don’t find this train of reasoning convincing. The idea that God would not create damage, hurt, broken lives, and broken families seems to ignore all the other things God allows. Some people are born psychopaths and are dangerous to everyone around them. Some are born with or early on develop unsatisfiable sexual desires or desires that are inherently predatory. It seems the Light of Christ missed a few people. Some are born to face intense and ongoing agony for most of their life. Many are physically, mentally, and emotionally crippled. Many are born into slavery with no real hope of escape or a better life and never get the opportunity to be raised by a family or form their own. I have a hard time buying that a God that is okay with all of that will arbitrarily declare that the pain of denied companionship in this life is a line in the sand. I believe God is just. I believe God loves us. I have a harder time believing that God is kind. The response is that the gospel of Jesus Christ will fix it. Usually though that repair does not show up in mortality.

I have to admit I find myself treating some of the statements in the Family Proclamation as dubious. Here is an obvious example:

“Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.”

I really wonder about the wording of that line. They are entitled to it yet a lot of them aren’t given it. A lot of that is due to human sin but a significant number of children throughout history don’t get it because mom dies in childbirth because God designed or allowed the birthing process to be very dangerous. Add to that that dad dies in battle or whatever so you are entitled to be born into a happy home but even the most devoted and loving parents don’t always get to provide what their children are entitled to. God knows what He is sending his children to endure but God sends them anyways. I have said before that if God showed up in a US family court and explained that he entrusted his children to the care of parents He knew would abuse them the court would terminate His parental rights. Cut and dried case of unfit parenting. So in what sense are children entitled to this? The nature of reality often means they do not get their entitlement and human error denies most of the rest of them that entitlement. What meaning of the word “entitled” were they going with here? Reality suggests this is the best case but most people won’t get it.

Like button!! 

[the narrator]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Moot question. 
 

Like asking, “If your church ever denied the divinity of Christ would there have to be a revelation?”

You're reminding me of this silly gem from John Lund's once-popular 1967 The Church and the Negro:

Quote

Brigham Young revealed that the Negroes will not received the Priesthood until a great while after the advent of Jesus Christ, whose coming will usher in a millennium of peace. . . . In view of what President Young and others have said, it would be foolish indeed to give anyone the false idea that a new revelation is immediately forthcoming on the issue of the Negroes receiving the Priesthood. If the prophet of God were to receive a revelation tomorrow giving the Negroes the Priesthood it would be certainly be accepted regardless of what Brigham Young or any other previous prophet has said. This is because the words of the living oracles relate more specifically to the era in which we live. . . . Mormons view a prophet as God’s literal mouthpiece on earth. . . . The faithful Latter-day Saint accepts the prophet’s words as God’s will. Prophets do not inspire God; God inspires prophets.

 

[OGHoosier]

At the pain of appearing pedantic, I have to respond to the claims that "God would do no such thing." This is the central intuition of the theological problem of evil, as @The Nehor indicates. Putting aside the inherent subjectivity of any such analysis, there is a very strong case to be made that we are not in any epistemological position to declare what exists within a God's-eye-view window of acceptable actions. See the irreplaceable Perry Hendricks on the matter: https://philpapers.org/archive/HENSTP.pdf. Thus, I find declarations of "God would not do X" to establish nothing more than what the constructed God within the commenter's head would or would not do. We all have constructed Gods in our heads - without doubt each of us has ideas about God that are mistaken. These ideas are not binding upon the actual God on His throne. 

Further interesting reading:

Feet of Clay: Queer Theory and the Church of Jesus Christ by Gregory L. Smith

Plato's Son, Augustine's Heir: Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology? by Valerie Hudson-Cassler

[CA Steve]

22 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Good point.

Bring on the revelation to fornicate, rape, murder, pillage, abuse.  Apparently there's precedent.

Evidently you have never read the Old Testament.

[ttribe]

32 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Good point.

Bring on the revelation to fornicate, rape, murder, pillage, abuse.  Apparently there's precedent.

Despite your sarcasm, the Bible (especially the Old Testament), is full of examples of all of those things by so-called men of God.

Edited April 4, 2022 by ttribe

[ttribe]

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Why should anyone be “torn in different directions” of anguish when, in the very same address, President Oaks testified that those in the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms of glory will enjoy states of sublime happiness that are far beyond anything the human mind can even begin to comprehend? In other words, gay members of the Church will receive a degree of salvation in the resurrection that’s perfectly designed to maximize their eternal peace happiness — so why all the despair?

Life in the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom is reserved for sealed husbands and wives who desire to continue to have children in eternity;  and since, by very nature, it’s impossible for two men or two women to have children, what would be the reason for entering into a celestial marriage when the whole point of such a marriage is eternal increase? And further, if two men or two women want to spend eternity cohabitating with each other without the possibility of having offspring, it seems reasonable that they would be able to do so without a sealing ordinance being required.

In Elder Oaks’ presentation of life in eternity everyone ends up exactly where they want to be, so why all the heartbreak and despair when everything is going to end up being perfectly right, fair and just, with peace and great abiding happiness enjoyed by all save the sons of perdition. And since the only way a celestial same sex marriage could rendered properly functional would be if one member of the couple volunteered to be transformed into either a man or woman (so that they could have children) such a transformation would deprive the same sex couple of the choice to abide with each other forever.

So the question is this: what could be more loving and fair than to not require same sex attracted individuals to be eternally bound to a member of the opposite sex? This means the hurt feelings of which you speak are only being caused because many members fail to appreciate just how loving, fair and accommodating God’s great plan of salvation really is! The people of whom you speak are, in a manner of speaking, “perishing for lack knowledge” and would rather vent in anguish than to stop to appreciate just how wonderfully fair God’s plan of happiness really is. In the great plan of salvation that Elder Oaks outlined, the opportunities for the salvation of same sex attracted people are maximized. Therefore it’s only a failure to comprehend the knowledge and wisdom of God that’s causing all the angst.

But as sure as the sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning, there will be many who will continue to be unnecessarily horrified and outraged because they rather enjoy beating down on the Church of Jesus Christ while basking in the “glory” their own ignorance-inspired self righteousness.

[ttribe]

18 hours ago, Buckeye said:

My sense is that President Oaks has never been a proponent of the doctrine/policy dichotomy. So I don’t see that part of his address as anything groundbreaking, but rather a reemphasis that the church’s teaching of marriage being only make-female is not going to change under his watch. At least for me, I have always thought the acceptance of SSM will come after his service ends, so again nothing new there. 
 

What may be new is the context of framing the marriage discussion with the three degrees of glory. This may be a harbinger of a push by the church to teach that those in SSMs have a place in Gods kingdoms, just not the highest degree. I’m not sure how that gets implemented in practice, but I certainly support anything that would help to provide a place in the church for gay and lesbian members who choose to form families. Maybe something like allowing them to pray and serve in limited capacities while not being permitted in the temple. I’m not predicting anything, just hoping for some movement to make more space in our congregations for these wonderful saints. 
 

Another thing that would be extremely helpful - but I’m not holding by breath - is a clear explanation of the eternal differences between genders. Is it just pregnancy and nursing? The POTF sets different expectations as to nurturing, presiding, providing and protecting, but those differences have been eroding under church policy changes since 1995 (a development I welcome). There will simply be no unity among the saints in understanding what the the eternal differences are until church leadership provides details. Every man and woman will apply their own belief and the doctrine will remain largely worthless apart from being the basis to reject SSM. 

You are correct:

This is especially damaging to the argument of those who claim the Priesthood prohibition was just 'policy."

[SwedishLDS]

11 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

At the pain of appearing pedantic, I have to respond to the claims that "God would do no such thing." This is the central intuition of the theological problem of evil, as @The Nehor indicates. Putting aside the inherent subjectivity of any such analysis, there is a very strong case to be made that we are not in any epistemological position to declare what exists within a God's-eye-view window of acceptable actions. See the irreplaceable Perry Hendricks on the matter: https://philpapers.org/archive/HENSTP.pdf. Thus, I find declarations of "God would not do X" to establish nothing more than what the constructed God within the commenter's head would or would not do. We all have constructed Gods in our heads - without doubt each of us has ideas about God that are mistaken. These ideas are not binding upon the actual God on His throne. 

Further interesting reading:

Feet of Clay: Queer Theory and the Church of Jesus Christ by Gregory L. Smith

Plato's Son, Augustine's Heir: Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology? by Valerie Hudson-Cassler

people only push the same sex question in the church because it is convenient/matches their ideology. I never see people pushing for everyone to pay more in tithing at all as often. 

 

Edited April 4, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Despite your sarcasm, the Bible (especially the Old Testament, is full of examples of all of those things by so-called men of God.

The bible is a crazy scattering of men's thoughts, now to weed out the thoughts of God, how many I cannot say. But it's like finding a needle in a haystack, IMO. 

[ttribe]

Just now, Tacenda said:

The bible is a crazy scattering of men's thoughts, now to weed out the thoughts of God, how many I cannot say. But it's like finding a needle in a haystack, IMO. 

With respect, that assumes: 1) there is a God; 2) said God has ever spoken to humanity; and 3) that there is anything at all in the Bible which represents the will of said God.

[the narrator]

51 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm seriously wondering why people think a revelation allowing sin will ever be given.

I'm seriously wondering why you think people think this.

Just kidding. I'm aware that you are confusing clarification of something not being a sin with that thing still being a sin but just allowed (which, I think, by definition makes it no longer considered sinful).

And, yes, the young history of the Church is filled with things once deemed sinful but not anymore (or vice versa)--for examples: contraception, beer, homosexual attraction, etc.