Family proclamation founded on irrevocable doctrine: President Oaks

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I stand by my statement.
If President Nelson were to claim a revelation that SSM was acceptable to the Lord I would reject such revelation (and probably his office with it).  It simply cannot come from God.
If it ever comes it won't be from God.

It is odd that for some SSM is up there with denying that Jesus is the Christ as a kind of fundamental teaching that cannot be altered or clarified and doing so is proof of apostasy.

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I stand by my statement.
If President Nelson were to claim a revelation that SSM was acceptable to the Lord I would reject such revelation (and probably his office with it).  It simply cannot come from God.
If it ever comes it won't be from God.

Many people said the same thing about the Priesthood prohibition. You may not like it, but there are plenty of parallels on the two issues.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, something is sinful if it operates against God's work, not merely because it is temporal.

Murder is sinful because it takes away the gift of life God gave us.  The example of Nephi works as an exception only because God is the one instructing Laban's life to be ended.
SSM is sinful because it takes away the ability for God's children to be born within an eternal family covenant.  Even if SSM were permitted in the temple there would still be no way for that couple to continue God's work or fulfill the first command he gave to mankind.  The only way for a child to be born in such a relationship involves crossing of family lines, going outside of the marriage covenant.

So there is a possibility that in specific circumstances where it furthers God’s plan God could command you to commit a homosexual act as an exception to the general rule?

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I have taught (in seminary, Gospel Doctrine, FHE) that the definition of sin is "attitudes and behaviors that prevent us from achieving our full eternal potential."  

How did you square this with the WoW?  It is sinful for us to drink wine, for example, but Christ drank wine and was without sin.  I'm not trying to trap you, just to understand what you are saying better.

If Christ could reach His full eternal potential and drink wine, but I can't, then that would seem to imply that it's not the action that keeps us from achieving our full potential but rather staying within the bounds that God has set for us.

[the narrator]

3 hours ago, the narrator said:

Have you ever considered that maybe billions of eternally existent non-biological spirits are not the product of a penis entering a vagina, ejaculating biological sperm, and inseminating biological eggs?

What does it even mean for a physical/biological body to become pregnant with non-physical unembodied spirits? How are those birthed?

Considering that nowhere in LDS canon (or official teachings) is it claimed that spirits are the result of sexual intercourse between two divine beings, why must it be assumed to be the case? If anything, LDS canon and tradition, including JS's sermons, point to spirits being eternally existent, with the parentage of God(s) being more akin to adoption than procreation. Given the nonsense in the idea of biological bodies producing spirit bodies in this way, the actually scriptural model being more adoptive, and the multitude of miraculous claims and notions of creation within LDS canon and tradition, surely Saints could easily imagine eternal and divine parentage that doesn't necessitate the exchange of bodily fluids during copulation.

Hoping that someone else may be able to explain the necessity of a penis, vagina, semen, and eggs for the existence of billions of unembodied non-biological spirits, as well as an explanation for what it means for those unembodied spirits to be gendered.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So there is a possibility that in specific circumstances where it furthers God’s plan God could command you to commit a homosexual act as an exception to the general rule?

 I can't possibly imagine such a circumstance, but knock yourself out.

[OGHoosier]

23 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Indeed, there are several replicated studies about young boys and toy preference. This is true for non-human primates as well where societal conditioning is not a factor.
https://parentingscience.com/girl-toys-and-parenting/

Indeed. There's more. I reproduce the following from an article at Stanford Medicine (hardly a schmuck site) entitled Two Minds: The Cognitive Differences Between Men and Women. 

Quote

Halpern and others have cataloged plenty of human behavioral differences. “These findings have all been replicated,” she says. Women excel in several measures of verbal ability — pretty much all of them, except for verbal analogies. Women’s reading comprehension and writing ability consistently exceed that of men, on average. They out­perform men in tests of fine-motor coordination and perceptual speed. They’re more adept at retrieving information from long-term memory.

Men, on average, can more easily juggle items in working memory. They have superior visuospatial skills: They’re better at visualizing what happens when a complicated two- or three-dimensional shape is rotated in space, at correctly determining angles from the horizontal, at tracking moving objects and at aiming projectiles.

Navigation studies in both humans and rats show that females of both species tend to rely on landmarks, while males more typically rely on “dead reckoning”: calculating one’s position by estimating the direction and distance traveled rather than using landmarks.

Many of these cognitive differences appear quite early in life. “You see sex differences in spatial-visualization ability in 2- and 3-month-old infants,” Halpern says. Infant girls respond more readily to faces and begin talking earlier. Boys react earlier in infancy to experimentally induced perceptual discrepancies in their visual environment. In adulthood, women remain more oriented to faces, men to things.

All these measured differences are averages derived from pooling widely varying individual results. While statistically significant, the differences tend not to be gigantic. They are most noticeable at the extremes of a bell curve, rather than in the middle, where most people cluster. Some argue that we may safely ignore them.

But the long list of behavioral tendencies in which male-female ratios are unbalanced extends to cognitive and neuro­psychiatric disorders. Women are twice as likely as men to experience clinical depression in their lifetimes; likewise for post-traumatic stress disorder. Men are twice as likely to become alcoholic or drug-dependent, and 40 percent more likely to develop schizophrenia. Boys’ dyslexia rate is perhaps 10 times that of girls, and they’re four or five times as likely to get a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder.

Could underlying biological differences — subtle though they may be for most of us — help explain these gaping
between-sex imbalances in the prevalence of mental disorders and account for the cognitive and behavioral differences observed between men and women?

The idea that men and women are distinguishable only in terms of reproductive function and secondary sex characteristics is false. Differences between the sexes extend to areas such as cognitive function - which most of us see as far more likely to continue in the eternities than mortal reproductive functions. Men and women are not interchangeable. I believe that the idea that we could be interchangeable in the eternities is unfounded. Furthermore, the intuition that mortal reproduction has absolutely nothing to do with how things go in the celestial state is at once unfounded and crypto-sexist, per Valerie Hudson-Cassler in the article which I previously linked. We don't know one way or another. 

[SwedishLDS]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How did you square this with the WoW?  It is sinful for us to drink wine, for example, but Christ drank wine and was without sin.  I'm not trying to trap you, just to understand what you are saying better.

If Christ could reach His full eternal potential and drink wine, but I can't, then that would seem to imply that it's not the action that keeps us from achieving our full potential but rather staying within the bounds that God has set for us.

D&C 89 addresses this

1 A Word of Wisdom, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion—
2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—
3 Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.
4 Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—

 

I will note that 90% of all crime happens after 11pm and most when people are under the influence

Edited April 4, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

 

Seems a lot like you are engaging in the same sort of "My God would not do this"  you accused Kim P of earlier.

Perhaps I am.
Or perhaps I take God at his previous words when he says he doesn't change.  See, I'm not saying "my God wouldn't do this."  I'm saying "my God SAID he wouldn't do this".

It's not about what I want God to be.  It's never about what I want (story of my life).  It's about what God says regardless of how it makes me feel.

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 I can't possibly imagine such a circumstance, but knock yourself out.

Maybe Nephi thought the same thing about murder...

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'd love to know what the current definition of "the Law of Chastity" is?
Do we go by the temple covenant or some other definition.

People are bound by the LoC before they are endowed, so I don't think we can go by the temple covenant.  

But, isn't it a little strange to say that something can never be allowed under the law of chastity and at the same time not be able to define the law of chastity?  We have interpretations of the law but do we have the wording of the law itself?

 

[HappyJackWagon]

20 hours ago, jerryp48 said:

I hope this ends the “well they changed the policy on the priesthood” comparison.

why would it?

How many times was the priesthood ban affirmed by leaders? 

Honestly, when one leader says "X will never change" it strikes me as hubris. We can all cite multiple examples of past leaders teaching what they believed was absolute truth, only to have that changed by a later leader. Isn't that the point of continuing revelation? Isn't that why it is said that a living leader is more vital than a dead leader?

I have no doubt that Oaks views the proclamation as absolute truth, but do we put our faith in the current understanding of a leader? Even IF the proclamation is teaches important principles needed by the people in today's world, eliminating the possibility of change and growth seems a bit foolish.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

People are bound by the LoC before they are endowed, so I don't think we can go by the temple covenant.  

But, isn't it a little strange to say that something can never be allowed under the law of chastity and at the same time not be able to define the law of chastity?  We have interpretations of the law but do we have the wording of the law itself?

 

Agreed 100%.
Which is why I go with the temple version.  After all, that's the covenant I made.
But yeah, if we don't define something it becomes easier for us to change it whenever we want.

[Stormin' Mormon]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How did you square this with the WoW?  It is sinful for us to drink wine, for example, but Christ drank wine and was without sin.  I'm not trying to trap you, just to understand what you are saying better.

If Christ could reach His full eternal potential and drink wine, but I can't, then that would seem to imply that it's not the action that keeps us from achieving our full potential but rather staying within the bounds that God has set for us.

The WoW is a modern covenant for a modern Church (IE-"in consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days").  Christ was not under such a covenant; members of the modern church are.  Willfully disregarding one's covenants is an attitude or behavior that prevents us from achieving our full potential as heirs of God. 

edited to add: ninja'd by @SwedishLDSI step away from my computer for just ten minutes...

Edited April 4, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

People are bound by the LoC before they are endowed, so I don't think we can go by the temple covenant.  

But, isn't it a little strange to say that something can never be allowed under the law of chastity and at the same time not be able to define the law of chastity?  We have interpretations of the law but do we have the wording of the law itself?

Some may object and say that this isn't specified as the standardized wording, but I think the treatment in FtSoY would universally be acknowledged by active (non-activist) members as being comprehensive. I'm certain that the Q15 and the combined 70s quorums would agree.

Section under sexual purity:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/ForTheStrengthOfYouth-eng.pdf

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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

Joseph Smith:

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. This is the principle on which the government of Heaven is conducted, by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire."

[Buckeye]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

First, I said maybe, and second, being offended wasn’t a part of my comment either.

Take for example, the many talks that Pres. Oaks has given on the SSM subject.  Some have argued that they have provided the clarity that has been sought, while those who disagree with the talks don’t see them that way.

My point was that, as long as we can dismiss any talk we don’t like as being wrong and subject to reversal at a later date, then whether or not something provides “clarity” depends on the if we liked it or not.  Not on what was actually said.

And from my perspective, clarity with that caveat is useless.  It has been stripped of its power to accomplish its purpose.  So maybe, that is one reason God is sometimes in no hurry to provide it. 

I’m with you on SSM. That’s a clear issue and the church’s position clear.

My questions have been regarding gender essentialism, which is completely muddied and getting less clear every day. My pushing for clarity is not tied to liking or disliking the teaching, but because the lack of clarity inevitably leads to members making up their own doctrine to fill the void (a la Brother Wilcox) and members get burned on both ‘sides.’  

Do you not think clarity is needed from the church on what are the eternal differences between men and women? 

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Maybe Nephi thought the same thing about murder...

God gives life and God takes it away, whatever tool he uses to do it.
The sin is when we choose to take life away.  It's not ours to take.

[the narrator]

2 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

The WoW is a modern covenant for a modern Church

and this even has to be qualified further, as a modern 20th century covenant for a modern 20th and 21st century church, since the current application has very little in actual common with the 19th century revelation.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, SwedishLDS said:

D&C 89 addresses this

1 A Word of Wisdom, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion—
2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—
3 Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.
4 Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—

 

I will note that 90% of all crime happens after 11pm and most when people are under the influence

I don't disagree. 

But it doesn't really answer my question.  

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Joseph Smith:

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. This is the principle on which the government of Heaven is conducted, by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire."

I agree with this.
It doesn't mean God can choose to condone sin.  
D&C 1:31 "For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;"

So you can reason that God cannot require sin.  If God does require something it wouldn't be a sin.  But God is also incapable of requiring sin or calling evil good.

[OGHoosier]

16 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Hoping that someone else may be able to explain the necessity of a penis, vagina, semen, and eggs for the existence of billions of unembodied non-biological spirits, as well as an explanation for what it means for those unembodied spirits to be gendered.

Given that spirit is matter in LDS teaching, I think that "unembodied" is an inaccurate term. A spirit body is a different type of body, but a body it remains, and beyond that we know very little. I cannot presume to explain the necessity of reproductive organs and gametes in the creation of such a spirit body. Nor can I presume that they aren't involved at all. It seems that your propositions require them to be positively unnecessary, a position which I cannot adopt with confidence. Furthermore, I think any such intuition on the part of men is androcentric and suspect. Furthermore, such a position reduces the differences between men and women to mere matters of reproductive function, which is an inaccurate view.

[the narrator]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

So you can reason that God cannot require sin.  If God does require something it wouldn't be a sin.  But God is also incapable of requiring sin or calling evil good.

Why is it so difficult for you to grasp that nobody, not a single person here, is advocating for God to condone sin? Nor is anyone really advocating that God is changing His views on homosexuality. Rather, the point is that--like with so much that has changed--that it is possible for modern leaders to teach that previous authorities were wrong about God's views on homosexuality--just as they did with homosexual attraction.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Agreed 100%.
Which is why I go with the temple version.  After all, that's the covenant I made.
But yeah, if we don't define something it becomes easier for us to change it whenever we want.

But again, the LoC exists outside of the temple.  And the claim is that people who have never been endowed, who take part in SSM, are breaking the law of chastity.  If they never made that covenant, what law of chastity are they under?

If we are saying that SSM will always be a sin for the unendowed because of the LoC, then we should be able to back that up with the law itself.  Can we?

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree with this.
It doesn't mean God can choose to condone sin.  
D&C 1:31 "For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;"

So you can reason that God cannot require sin.  If God does require something it wouldn't be a sin.  But God is also incapable of requiring sin or calling evil good.

You mean, like taking another man's wife away from him?