Family proclamation founded on irrevocable doctrine: President Oaks

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, SwedishLDS said:

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. 

 

Perhaps let those concerned explain themselves. 

The fact is that with every generation of faithful families in the church, are born new people who are LGBTQ. That's the issue. They are part of the church and the teachings against them are harmful.

[SwedishLDS]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

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.

God does exist and lives. The bible is filled to the brim with the teachings of God as evident by its spirit.

3 minutes ago, the narrator said:

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.

nothing has really fundamentally changed that much though. Code of healthy living has always been important, the law to populate and replenish the earth is still coming as revelation for people to have children and I don’t see the church handing out condoms at street corners. 

The whole the church will promote LGBT living and same sex marriage as an alternative just seems like wishful thinking to me. There just is nothing there that argues for that, except that the world would love it. We are not immoral because we defend the prophets teachings

[pogi]

25 minutes ago, the narrator said:

beer

Did something happen in conference when I was asleep?

[the narrator]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Did something happen in conference when I was asleep?

This was one of the vice versa items: something recommended in modern revelation and canonized scripture that would now get you banned from the Temple.

[the narrator]

2 minutes ago, SwedishLDS said:

nothing has really fundamentally changed that much though.

Tell that to a gay saint who suffered for years because they were told that their attraction was sinful and needed to be stopped and repented of.

Seriously, you need to learn some empathy.

[SwedishLDS]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Perhaps let those concerned explain themselves. 

The fact is that with every generation of faithful families in the church, are born new people who are LGBTQ. That's the issue. They are part of the church and the teachings against them are harmful.

So you say, but what is wrong with what I am saying. I try to only preach church teachings. LGBT people exist yes, but teaching that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is fine is only bad for LGBT people, but an awfully convenient teaching for members and me alike. The problem as I see it though, is that the gospel isn’t supposed to be convenient and match society’s trends.

There is nothing harmful about the teachings though, although some people are not enough loving, but the general trend right now seems to be to be overly tolerant to the degree that society rejects it as even being sinful.

Gender is eternal and the family is fundamental. Something being convenient or prominent doesn’t make it right. 

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, jerryp48 said:

Is it settled that the priesthood ban was not doctrine?  Sincere question.  If so I’m not aware of the church saying otherwise.  Maybe they did, I’m just not aware of if.

Aug 17, 1949
First Presidency statement: The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which
we now are entitled to." President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have." The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order t
hat they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes. (3)

[SwedishLDS]

8 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Tell that to a gay saint who suffered for years because they were told that their attraction was sinful and needed to be stopped and repented of.

Seriously, you need to learn some empathy.

look that is sad and all, and I sympathise. I also have good relationships with several LGBT people. I don’t see how calling me bad is any better though.

I will say that that is a decent change in perspective yes, but is that really a change in behaviour?

Edited April 4, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, SwedishLDS said:

I will say that that is a decent change in perspective yes, but is that really a change in behaviour?

Parents disowning their children has been reduced.  

They are also no longer subject to church discipline and excommunication.

Quote

From 1976 until 1989 the Church Handbook called for church discipline for members attracted to the same sex equating merely being homosexual with the seriousness of acts of adultery and child molestation—even celibate gay people were subject to excommunication.^{[16]: 16, 43 [21]: 382, 422 [22]:}

 

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, Buckeye said:

I was paraphrasing a famous statement by Elder McConkie who was explaining how a revelation extending priesthood ordination to all men could have come when he himself had previously taught that men of African descent would not receive ordination in this life. 

And all I can say to that 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 President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever 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.

In other words Elder McConkie, we cannot really trust what you or any other leader says because you can get it wrong. Really wrong. But good advice.  Just forget everything he says. Also it seems to me that Elder McConkie was the one that needed to do some repenting for leading so many people astray on this issue.

Edited April 4, 2022 by Teancum

[SwedishLDS]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Parents disowning their children has been reduced.  

They are also no longer subject to church discipline and excommunication.

 

fair enough.

[the narrator]

22 minutes ago, SwedishLDS said:

Gender is eternal  

I seriously want to know what you mean by this. Specifically, what does it mean for a pre-mortal, non-biological entity that has no DNA nor is part of any sort of gendered society (as we would recognize) to be gendered? What differentiates a male vs female premortal spirit? Since they have no sexual organs (or any physiological/mental characteristics determined by genetics/biology), are the male spirits those who play with trucks as opposed to those who play with dolls?

Edited April 4, 2022 by the narrator

[JLHPROF]

41 minutes ago, the narrator said:

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).

Bottom line for me is God cannot "clarify" that homosexuality isn't a sin.  That's a revelation that can never come.  And if anyone proclaimed it they would be a false prophet.

Quote

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.

Actually, the real confusion here is between "deemed sinful" and "actually sinful".  What we deem something is completely irrelevant.

[SwedishLDS]

8 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I seriously want to know what you mean by this. Specifically, what does it mean for a pre-mortal, non-biological entity that has no DNA nor is part of any sort of gendered society (as we would recognize) to be gendered? What differentiates a male vs female premortal spirit? Since they have no sexual organs (or any physiological/mental characteristics determined by genetics/biology), are the male spirits those who play with trucks as opposed to those who play with dolls?

Didn’t President Oaks teach this very concept at general conference yesterday? He said that “gender is an essential part of pre-mortal, mortal and post-mortal existence.”

As for social interactions that is beyond me.  

Edited April 4, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

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

Being an internet board where text is the only means of communication, so I cannot tell if there is a sarcastic undertone to this. The face value reading I think I would agree with. It is not enough to accept something as truth just because someone (even Russel M Nelson?) called it revelation. I think this was part of the point that N. Givens was making in the prophetic fallibility article I linked to  several days ago. Each of us needs to do the hard work of coming to a sense of how we will discern truth from error -- even when revelation itself is not above suspicion. I suppose we could slide to the bottom of the slippery slope and decide there is not standard of truth, as you say, but I'm not sure it is necessary. We just need to lean into the struggle more.

[The Nehor]

57 minutes ago, SwedishLDS said:

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. 

 

I see some people (not necessarily on this board) that take this statement by Presdient Oaks as the final word on the subject and gladly endorse it but if you rewind they were hemming and hawing over President Nelson’s specific counsel to get vaccinated and weasel wording around it.

I suspect that there are very few people who haven’t had something that has come from the apostles stick in their craw a bit.

[ttribe]

12 minutes ago, SwedishLDS said:

Didn’t President Oaks teach this very concept at general conference yesterday? He said that “gender is an essential part of pre-mortal, mortal and post-mortal existence.”

As for social interactions that is beyond me.  

Perhaps you are unaware, but sex is biological and gender is a social construct. This issue is apparently lost on Elder Oaks, as well.

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Bottom line for me is God cannot "clarify" that homosexuality isn't a sin.  That's a revelation that can never come.  And if anyone proclaimed it they would be a false prophet.

I admit it seems strange to me that so many act as if this command is some central pillar of the gospel when it is only mentioned as part of an ancient purity law and Paul condemning a few general acts. It appears nowhere in modern scripture. If the book was for our day it seems a warning about it might be apt. The writers saw our day and knew our doings yet nothing.

[SwedishLDS]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I see some people (not necessarily on this board) that take this statement by Presdient Oaks as the final word on the subject and gladly endorse it but if you rewind they were hemming and hawing over President Nelson’s specific counsel to get vaccinated and weasel wording around it.

I suspect that there are very few people who haven’t had something that has come from the apostles stick in their craw a bit.

Interestingly put Mr/Mrs Nehor, we will all struggle with some things more than others. 

I have been surprised by how pulled into different political camps people have been to the degree that they reject President Nelsons advice for the vaccine 

[mfbukowski]

16 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I seriously want to know what you mean by this. Specifically, what does it mean for a pre-mortal, non-biological entity that has no DNA nor is part of any sort of gendered society (as we would recognize) to be gendered? What differentiates a male vs female premortal spirit? Since they have no sexual organs (or any physiological/mental characteristics determined by genetics/biology), are the male spirits those who play with trucks as opposed to those who play with dolls?

I don't think President Oaks was intending to give a talk about the science of the pre-existence, I think he was asserting a religious paradigm accepted on faith

Religion cannot be "proven" true or false through science, but confusing the two language-games is easy

The paradigms are structured differently, with different purposes 

[Duncan]

32 minutes ago, pogi said:

Parents disowning their children has been reduced.  

They are also no longer subject to church discipline and excommunication.

 

Here in Canada, members of the RCMP, who were gay or suspected of being gay, were fired, there was a huge purge. Nothing to do with their job performance and within the last ten years the Canadian Government issued an apology and I think paid out money for damages as well. 

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/a-tale-of-two-mounties-surrey-rcmp-officer-writes-about-lgbt-purge-1.4730787

[SwedishLDS]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Perhaps you are unaware, but sex is biological and gender is a social construct. This issue is apparently lost on Elder Oaks, as well.

I am aware of how people argue about it yes, people are wrong though. There is a slight difference, but society promote it as a part of a general genderless society promotion.

People love saying that it is all a social construct and that sex change surgeries are good and encourages others to do it, but that is misguided.

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, SwedishLDS said:

I am aware of how people argue about it yes, people are wrong though. There is a slight difference, but society promote it as a part of a general genderless society promotion.

People love saying that it is all a social construct and that sex change surgeries are good and encourages others to do it, but that is misguided.

So, males are born already predisposed to playing with cars and females are born already predisposed to playing with dolls?

This isn't a matter of some philosophy, it's the actual science.

Edited April 4, 2022 by ttribe

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I admit it seems strange to me that so many act as if this command is some central pillar of the gospel when it is only mentioned as part of an ancient purity law and Paul condemning a few general acts. It appears nowhere in modern scripture. If the book was for our day it seems a warning about it might be apt. The writers saw our day and knew our doings yet nothing.

You misunderstand (or reject) the reason it is a sin.

It's not so much the act (although sexuality outside of marriage is sinful), but it's what such relationships run counter to.

The warning against homosexual relationships in scripture may be minimal.  But the instructions to unite male and female, marry, raise children, multiply and replenish, and the definition of exaltation are all throughout and clearly laid out.
Lineage, inheritance, family lines, patriarchal blessings, marriage and family sealings.  The entire plan of the gospel revolves around the father/mother/child relationships.  The blessings of Abraham and the covenant are based entirely in his seed.  Eve's entire justification for eating the fruit according to scripture was to be able to reproduce.  The eternal marriage ceremony ends with these blessings of exaltation and an injunction to multiply and replenish in order to receive them.

The sin is in choosing an alternative relationship that doesn't work for this.  Homosexual relationships can't be eternal because they remove the eternal increase part of exaltation.

Edited April 4, 2022 by JLHPROF

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Being an internet board where text is the only means of communication, so I cannot tell if there is a sarcastic undertone to this. The face value reading I think I would agree with. It is not enough to accept something as truth just because someone (even Russel M Nelson?) called it revelation. I think this was part of the point that N. Givens was making in the prophetic fallibility article I linked to  several days ago. Each of us needs to do the hard work of coming to a sense of how we will discern truth from error -- even when revelation itself is not above suspicion. I suppose we could slide to the bottom of the slippery slope and decide there is not standard of truth, as you say, but I'm not sure it is necessary. We just need to lean into the struggle more.

I love the two bolded statements, and I think they are both a major part of God's plan for increasing our spiritual maturity.