Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Adam and Steve


Recommended Posts

What do LDS think of these arguments presented here by a guy who was working in the LDS translation department

Same sex relationships has affected my family. My daughters father in law left the family for a long term relationship with another man. My son in law has had a difficult time dealing with it. Both he and my daughter both teach in a Christian school. What concerns would you have with his arguments?

 

Link to comment

The time stamp you have on there takes you straight to Lillith legends which aren’t canon to almost all Christian faiths.

I am not watching over an hour of stuff though so no idea about the rest. I am bisexual so when it comes to stupid one-liners about it I stick with it being “Adam and Eve” and not “Adam or Eve”. Steve is fine too I guess.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

What do LDS think of these arguments presented here by a guy who was working in the LDS translation department

Same sex relationships has affected my family. My daughters father in law left the family for a long term relationship with another man. My son in law has had a difficult time dealing with it. Both he and my daughter both teach in a Christian school. What concerns would you have with his arguments?

 

Whatever the Bible can be shown to say pro, con or neutral, people will use the text to prove their religious position or refute another's. So, we go with faith in and a testimony of the Restored gospel; that as validly biased as anything else. In a good way!

Link to comment

Adam and Steve. 😂 That's a good one. (Deep breath) if the church really worked like that then... i would now be married with a nice Mormon man and lived happy. And sEve. And it would be romantic. I have not seen the video btw. I can't even see how long it would take me. 

Edit. Oh longer then an hour i see. Never mind. 😖

Edited by Dario_M
Link to comment

 

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

Whatever the Bible can be shown to say pro, con or neutral, people will use the text to prove their religious position or refute another's. So, we go with faith in and a testimony of the Restored gospel; that as validly biased as anything else. In a good way!

And it's interesting how absolutely silent the restored gospel and doctrine actually are on the matter...

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Jaydes said:

And it's interesting how absolutely silent the restored gospel and doctrine actually are on the matter...

What have you found prophets of the restored gospel to teach on "the matter" (I presume you mean how human sexuality relates to the covenant path)?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Jaydes said:

Many Presidents of the LDS Church have taught against it, and never by revelation. But the Book of Mormon (divinely addressed to our day),  the Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price- mention nary a word about it.

It seems a bit dubious to take the word of people who never pronounced a revelation on the matter, and the same batch of people who taught that African Americans were inferior, denied them salvation, and taught whoredoms and adultery as being valid and essential under the name of polygamy- and who made it policy that a gay marriage is worse than rape, attempted murder, and spousal abuse- as out weighing the scriptural silence. I doubt the God, who says we need not be commanded in all things, would behold people to commandments not even given as revelation, by some random rich men in Utah 100+ Years after the restoration occurred.     

Joseph Smith was silent about it, Hyrum Smith was silent about it. In facts it was never mentioned by any LDS President until almost a century after the death of Joseph. And even then it was hardly ever truly a point of attention until it became tied up with communism and unpatrioticness in the popular consciousness.

There was President George Albert Smith who showed his love for a young gay couple who feared excommunication, and simply told them to live their life the best they can and gave no rebuke or disciplinary action. 

I agree we should make conclusions based on faith and testimony in the restored gospel.

What does the restored gospel say about this subject?

Absolutely nothing; without falling back on the aforementioned biblical disputes, or relying on non-revelatory statements and philosophies of men and the world decades detached from the fact.

I am not sure I understand what you are saying: are you trying to say that prophets of the Restoration taught against how human sexuality relates to the covenant path? I'm not sure that makes sense, but if they did, you haven’t provided any examples of such statements. As far as I can tell, the Family Proclamation recognizes and affirms the concept of human sexuality, the term first entering the English language in the 1700s, a good many years prior to the Restoration. This has given the topic a head start life of its own, so to speak, which isn't a bad thing in and of itself, with a compounding societal impact and priority judging by the media (trending toward preoccupation). Given such a head start, the Church has in the years since addressed how people adopting this concept can relate it to the covenant path.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment

I only got a third through this and am going no further.  Does Dan make any arguments later in it? - because from my understanding he doesn't make arguments for or against any particular view of the church.  He is only telling what scriptures actually say or don't say.  

Link to comment
4 hours ago, CV75 said:

I am not sure I understand what you are saying: are you trying to say that prophets of the Restoration taught against how human sexuality relates to the covenant path? I'm not sure that makes sense, but if they did, you haven’t provided any examples of such statements. As far as I can tell, the Family Proclamation recognizes and affirms the concept of human sexuality, the term first entering the English language in the 1700s, a good many years prior to the Restoration. This has given the topic a head start life of its own, so to speak, which isn't a bad thing in and of itself, with a compounding societal impact and priority judging by the media (trending toward preoccupation). Given such a head start, the Church has in the years since addressed how people adopting this concept can relate it to the covenant path.

I am speaking as to whether or not the restored gospel has taught in favor of or against same sex relationships.

The Family Proclamation was not written at all by LDS Presidents or any other Prophets of the Restoration, it was drafted and ratified by a team of lawyers in order to win a lawsuit.

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, Jaydes said:

I am speaking as to whether or not the restored gospel has taught in favor of or against same sex relationships.

Then your replies have been non sequiturs to my posts. As to whether or not the restored gospel has taught in favor of or against same sex relationships, can you list some statements from the Church apostles and prophets about them?

32 minutes ago, Jaydes said:

The Family Proclamation was not written at all by LDS Presidents or any other Prophets of the Restoration, it was drafted and ratified by a team of lawyers in order to win a lawsuit.

And yet the Church prophets and apostles of the Restoration (who point to the Family Proclamation) have said plenty about how human sexuality relates to the covenant path.

Link to comment
55 minutes ago, Jaydes said:

The Family Proclamation was not written at all by LDS Presidents or any other Prophets of the Restoration, it was drafted and ratified by a team of lawyers in order to win a lawsuit.

Is that why it’s been used, quoted, referenced, displayed and distributed so extensively since then?

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

It doesn't appear to have been written for that purpose. It was provided to the Hawaii Supreme Court as part of an amicus curiae brief, but that happened two years after it was drafted. The available evidence seems to support that the initial impetus for drafting the proclamation was the alarming statistics regarding the disintegration of the family around the word. A report on a world conference on the family held in Cairo in 1994, read by Elder Packer, seems to be what started the desire to draft the proclamation. There is no evidence that the proclamation was written by a team of lawyers. The principal draftsman, according to evidence, appears to have been, then, Elder Nelson, assisted by Elders Faust and Oaks.

There were two amicus curiaes that the church filed.  You are talking about the one in 1997 that included the proclamation.  I'm talking about the 1995 one that didn't include the proclamation and was denied because the church didn't have standing.  It is possible the proclamation was drafted because of both the Cairo conference and the Hawaii court case as they were around the same time period.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Jaydes said:

I am speaking as to whether or not the restored gospel has taught in favor of or against same sex relationships.

The Family Proclamation was not written at all by LDS Presidents or any other Prophets of the Restoration, it was drafted and ratified by a team of lawyers in order to win a lawsuit.

I don't know what you're talking about, concerning a team of lawyers, unless you're referring to the fact that some of the Q12 are lawyers by profession. So, along that line, let me share what President Dallin Oaks, a former lawyer and Utah state supreme court justice, said about the process of creating the Family Proclamation, in the October 2017 General Conference. The Plan and the Proclamation

In 1995 a President of the Church and 14 other Apostles of the Lord issued these important doctrinal statements. As one of only seven of those Apostles still living, I feel obliged to share what led to the family proclamation for the information of all who consider it.

The inspiration identifying the need for a proclamation on the family came to the leadership of the Church over 23 years ago. It was a surprise to some who thought the doctrinal truths about marriage and the family were well understood without restatement. Nevertheless, we felt the confirmation and we went to work. Subjects were identified and discussed by members of the Quorum of the Twelve for nearly a year. Language was proposed, reviewed, and revised. Prayerfully we continually pleaded with the Lord for His inspiration on what we should say and how we should say it. We all learned “line upon line, precept upon precept,” as the Lord has promised (D&C 98:12).

During this revelatory process, a proposed text was presented to the First Presidency, who oversee and promulgate Church teachings and doctrine. After the Presidency made further changes, the proclamation on the family was announced by the President of the Church, Gordon B. Hinckley. In the women’s meeting of September 23, 1995, he introduced the proclamation with these words: “With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn.”

I testify that the proclamation on the family is a statement of eternal truth, the will of the Lord for His children who seek eternal life. It has been the basis of Church teaching and practice for the last 22 years and will continue so for the future. Consider it as such, teach it, live by it, and you will be blessed as you press forward toward eternal life.

President Oaks avers that the text of the proclamation was obtained during a "revelatory process". Was he lying?

Can you tell us who were the members of the team of lawyers you refer to?

Edited by Stargazer
Link to comment

For what it's worth, revelation is actually not usually received in a bulk, dictated from above. Even in the case of the most famous Revelation, the book bearing that name in the New Testament, it was not dictated by God to John, but it is his recounting of the vision which he was given. He told what he saw. It is his own words, describing what God gave him. In fact, the bulk revelation coming down the pike to the revelator is rather rare, when you come to it. The Lord provided many bulk revelations that were written down and compiled as the Doctrine and Covenants. But even so, some of them are pulled together into sections from separate instances of bulk revelations. And some sections aren't revelations at all, but are statements of understanding of how the Lord directed things be done, or understood.

Cleon Skousen once described a revelation that he was a part of, during a meeting that discussed something to be done about a radio show the church was sponsoring. It was something that Skousen was going to be in charge of producing. Among the participants were Skousen, Harold B. Lee, and Gordon B. Hinckley. There were a couple of other members of the Twelve, as well as a few others. This was quite a long time ago, before Br. Hinckley was even a General Authority. 

Skousen said that the discussion about how the radio series should be done was in the form of a round-robin where each member of the committee laid out how they felt it should go, and then they discussed the various options. Skousen said that the first plan was laid out by a member of the Twelve, and it was way more ambitious than he had any way of carrying out in the time available, and that he hoped that wasn't going to be the plan. And then the next person proposed a modification, that the series should go this way, with this content. Eventually, the proposal became closer to what Skousen thought he could do. And at some point in the discussion, Skousen reported:

"And then it happened," he said. It was a marvelous feeling of spiritual uplift that affected everyone similarly. Skousen said that everyone was silent, just looking at the table top. Finally, Elder Lee said "Well, it looks like we have our answer! Brother Skousen, go ahead. Everything should work out just fine." As they filed out of the room, Skousen marveled and asked Br. Hinckley: "Did you feel THAT?" Whereupon Hinckley asked "Is that new to you?" "No, but I've never felt it that strong before!" Hinckley nodded and said "That's called 'Waiting on the Lord.'"

I have been in bishopric meetings as the clerk where the bishop and his counselors (and me and the exec sec) were discussing matters that needed to be decided. And not every time, but occasionally there would come a feeling of rightness about a decision. Hard to describe, but a very positive feeling that that was the way the Lord particularly wanted it. 

I don't find it incongruous at all that the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve worked for around a year to get that Proclamation to come out just right. It is a worthy document, and clearly inspired. 

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...

The church has struggle with this subject with many different viewpoints and positions over the years. They still have no official position on how homosexuality ultimately fits into the plan of salvation. They have made many guesses or said in their opinion, but no defined revelation. 
We even have the church supporting the rights to same sex marriage for all Americans.
I think we have not heard the end of this subject. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

The church has struggle with this subject with many different viewpoints and positions over the years. They still have no official position on how homosexuality ultimately fits into the plan of salvation. They have made many guesses or said in their opinion, but no defined revelation. 
We even have the church supporting the rights to same sex marriage for all Americans.
I think we have not heard the end of this subject. 

We have not.  And todays youth will not tolerate it 20 years from now when they are in leadership positions. 

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

I think we have not heard the end of this subject. 

15 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

We have not.  And todays youth will not tolerate it 20 years from now when they are in leadership positions. 

An anarchist/atheist buddy and I were arguing such things 10 years ago.  From his perspective, the surrounding culture in which the church operates will only increase in acceptance and normalization of same-sex issues.  Therefore, since the church, like all such organizations, MUST continue growing, the only way for this to happen, is if we bend on gay marriage.  10 years ago, he predicted we'd be performing same sex sealings in our temples within 30 years (meaning today we've still got ~20 years)    My perspective was to point out the Catholic position on birth control and abortion, and to state my belief that while the Lord will tinker with such things on His timetable, no, I don't see such a radical about-face happening.

We have a bet.  In ~20 years, the church will either be performing same-sex sealings in the temple, or it won't.  Loser has to wear a pink tutu and sing "I'm a little teapot."   

Would anyone like to join me in this bet?  Taking folks from either side.

Edited by LoudmouthMormon
Link to comment
15 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

We have not.  And todays youth will not tolerate it 20 years from now when they are in leadership positions. 

Could you clarify what you mean by "will not tolerate it 20 years from now"? Do you mean despite what their spiritual proclivities tell them or that revelation will come to them that indeed it is time to allow sealing of homosexual couples? 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Could you clarify what you mean by "will not tolerate it 20 years from now"? Do you mean despite what their spiritual proclivities tell them or that revelation will come to them that indeed it is time to allow sealing of homosexual couples? 

Church position changes depending on the culture of those in leadership positions.  That's just a fact of life.

No actual revelation will ever allow homosexual sealings.  But future leaders will pray about it and eventually it will happen because people will feel like it's what God wants.  The idea will make people feel warm and fuzzy.  They'll feel discomfort with the status quo and movement of society, and by golly if you feel bad about it then it's not from God, right?

Elder Holland was right: "it is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much, comfortable gods, smooth gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it, gods who pat us on the head, make us giggle, then tell us to run along and pick marigolds."

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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