The next logical step

[JohnsonJones]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

There's a VERY BIG difference between Blacks and the Priesthood versus Eternal Marriage.

Ordaining Blacks as Priests does not change ANY of the doctrine as restored by Joseph Smith.  NONE.

Sealing homosexual marriages makes Gender interhangeable - Mother and Father becomes gender interchangeable such that Mother is now Male or Female and Father is now Male or Female.  That basically breaks every teaching on family that is the foundation of the organization of the plan of salvation.

So, if the First Presidency declares the policy of homosexual marriages as Godly, they got A WHOLE LOT OF 'SPLAININ to changes in foundational doctrine that they have to do - a challenge that the change to the policy of ordaining Blacks into the Priesthood did not have.

It would be the exact same challenge as declaring God the Father to be gender interchangeable.

You are absolutely right, but it DID change some of the things that were stated by Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith and even, to a lesser degree, Joseph Fielding Smith.

We now say that what they said was said as them speaking as men (even those items spoken over the pulpit at General Conference) many times when we refer to it.  However, for over a century it was accepted as doctrine rather than them speaking as men by many members. 

I've put in my thoughts in other threads in the past how to reinterpret it rather than flat out state that they were wrong, but in the understanding of what they said prior to the change which allowed Blacks to hold the priesthood, the understanding had it very differently than what I've presented here in recent months. (and how others also present it today in may ways).

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

Yes. All ordinances are spiritual. All of them. This includes baptism, the sacrament, and ordination to an office. I suppose it includes being set apart for a calling and blessing a baby. All are spiritual, even those in which Aaronic Priesthood holders officiate.

This sentence demonstrates that you do not understand the nature of proxy baptism.

I gather that your larger point is that we don't know the mind of God, and that God might make changes to his kingdom (a.k.a. his Church) that we don't understand and that we might not be comfortable with. I agree with this point. But your examples illustrating this are all wrong. I understand that you might think that homosexual "marriage" is just almost exactly like African blacks receiving the Priesthood. But you are wrong. The two are fundamentally dissimilar in nature.

I understand what you are stating, but you are also ignoring what was stated in the REASONS why Priests were not allowed to officiate over Temple ordinances for...well...over a century previous to this recent change.

It's AMAZING how quickly we forget.  It's been...what...less than a year for this change?

Edited November 19, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

You are absolutely right, but it DID change some of the things that were stated by Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith and even, to a lesser degree, Joseph Fielding Smith.

We now say that what they said was said as them speaking as men (even those items spoken over the pulpit at General Conference) many times when we refer to it.  However, for over a century it was accepted as doctrine rather than them speaking as men by many members. 

Sure.  Like, now it is been made into a commandment to not drink coffee or tea and it may become not a commandment tomorrow and those speeches over the pulpit about the commandment of the WOW would become "for that time".  But, Eternal Marriage is not just about "spoken over the pulpit at General Conference".  It's a FOUNDATIONAL teaching.  As foundational as the organization of the church into Prophets, Seers, Revelators which is the reason the early Christian Church went into a state of apostasy - as they abandoned that foundational teaching of prophets, seers, and revelators.  To make that change would require much more than "speaking over the pulpit at General Conference".  It will be an overhaul of the foundational teaching of the Plan of Salvation and the organization of the Celestial Kingdom.

Edited November 19, 2018 by anatess2

[person0]

On 11/18/2018 at 10:53 AM, Tyme said:

Do you guys think that the church's position on same-sex issues will stop the rough stone from rolling? My generation mostly supports gays unconditionally. The next generation is even more fervent in support of gays. That includes a good percentage of church youth.

The parable of the 10 virgins is representative only of those who are members of the Church.  So if we expect around 50% of the Church to not be ready at the second coming, I don't see how this is an issue.

[Grunt]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Tyme mentioned Blacks and the Priesthood.

Believe it or not, it was a HOT issue for DECADES prior to that.  The arguments were surprisingly similar to what Gay Marriage and the Temple are today.  There were General Conference talks that were so strongly worded as to leave very little doubt that Blacks would not be getting the Priesthood any time soon. 

Obviously, as some would put it, I was on the wrong side of History.

 I may still be on the wrong side of History.  I do not see how one could reconcile the Bible or our doctrine today with Gay Marriage, much less homosexual activities.

However, I'm not so set that I will state that this will NEVER happen.  Without direct confirmation from the Spirit it is even likely I would actually raise my hand against it if it was ever proposed from the pulpit.

That said, I don't know the future.

I think @Tyme  has brought up some very good discussion points, some that should be very alarming for us in it's trends.  In our full on consumption to rebuke, the discussion of What If has been neglected.

I think he raises a VERY GOOD point on a specific thing that the future may hold.  Looking at the charts that were posted in regards to Mormons and their views of Homosexuality you see a very chilling trend.  Baby Boomers seem to be accepting of homosexuality, but almost 50% of those 18-29 year olds do as well.  It actually is pretty chilling if one looks at it. 

I think some of the changes (a more feminist slant in the temple for example) are due to changing demographics and views in the church.  What will the church do if that percentage goes over 75% or even 90% of those in the church?

What happens when there is pressure to change?

I DO NOT know.  Luckily, as I mentioned I'll probably be too old to really be concerned or dead..either way.

 

The HUGE issue with your examples is they were never declared doctrinally wrong that I can find.  The same is not true with same sex marriage.  Giving us more information through revelation is far different than saying "oh yeah, that thing I told you before?  Forget about it.  It was wrong."

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

The HUGE issue with your examples is they were never declared doctrinally wrong that I can find.  The same is not true with same sex marriage.  Giving us more information through revelation is far different than saying "oh yeah, that thing I told you before?  Forget about it.  It was wrong."

A prime example is with Blacks and the Priesthood.  Prior to 1978 it was understood for the most part that those who were of African Descent would be the absolute last to receive the priesthood.  It would be done AFTER ALL other, after every single other person had either accepted or rejected it.  There would not be others.  This is how it was presented for many years and even before I joined the church.

At that time there were many members who said it was only a matter of time before the church had to do something.  There were those who said that eventually the church would capitulate.  There were others who said they believed in the words of the prophets and apostles who stated that this would not happen.  The church did not change simply because of society.  There were scriptures used to back up these items. 

Obviously, the entire game changed in 1978.

Today, we tend to say these prophets and apostles were speaking as men when they talked about this, OR, (and this is normally what I go with) that we and they misinterpreted what was supposed to be said or what was actually meant.

However, at the time, it was VERY clear what was said AND it was accepted as doctrine in the Church.

Doctrinally, what we say about them being wrong or that we misinterpreted what they meant would have been apostasy prior to 1975 at least from my viewpoint.

Closer to the our time with feministic ideas within the Church.

In regards to women being sealed to more than one man, this is still what we doctrinally practice for the living.  WE do not allow a woman to be sealed to more than one husband in this life.  If she is already sealed to one husband, we use the direction given by Brigham Young on the process that has to be done.  As per that direction, a man who has been sealed to a wife CANNOT have her taken away from him unless he consents to it.  The other out that we can see possibly from history is if there was either adultery, OR the husband falls away from the church itself.  If a husband is sealed to his wife, otherwise, he cannot be unsealed.  A man with a Higher priesthood authority could be sealed to her without a divorce necessary, but ONLY if her first husband consents.  In all cases, a husband must needs therefore consent prior to her being sealed to another except in specific cases (such as above with adultery and/or apostasy).  Even the Prophet could not steal a wife away from a husband who would not give her away as per Brigham Young.

I believe this is why we, even today, ask for a spousal consent for an ex-spouse to be sealed to another.  Sometimes if they do not consent, depending on the revelation of the Lord an ex-spouse can get resealed to another.  Normally this may be due to apostasy or adultery that was undivulged by another, or a similar reason.  There are cases though, where the spouse does not consent and thus the ex-spouse CANNOT get sealed to another.

This was NOT done in the temple for many years.  For the start, there was no way to attain consent from the dead unless you had direct revelation that only the First Presidency could receive.  There are MANY sealings done in the Temple and this is impossible for them to pray over every single situation.  Therefore, because you cannot comply with the law of consent, and because the order of things (which is why you do not seal a child to every adult that may have watched over them in their childhood, even if they had 10 different adults watch them at some point or other), women were ONLY sealed to their first husband unless otherwise specifically known. 

Yes, mistakes were made, but it was considered that less mistakes would be needed to be cleared up then if we did it like we do it now.  The understanding was that a sealing ordinance was just that, it literally was using the powers of the Lord that could command a mountain to move from one spot or another, that could seal the heavens up so no rain fell or cause it to rain that were sealing two individuals together.  They could choose to accept or reject it, but it was a SEALING ordinance with power and authority.  Thus, to use it to try to seal people willy nilly, or a woman to more than one man not only was not orderly in the order of things, but also was using the power to literally seal her to multiple men, something that would NEED to be cleared up in the hereafter (though it was never clarified HOW this was to be cleared up).

AS we see, doctrinally, we no longer adhere to this policy in regards to the dead.

There are many things that were considered doctrine in the past that we no longer adhere to.  When I was first in the church most of these things were acknowledged and talked about.  It is interesting the change in atmosphere and attitude that has occurred in the church since then.

Many things that would have been considered apostasy then are considered historical facts for members to discuss today, and many things that were considered doctrine previously are considered either apostasy today or instead of doctrines are related as prophets simply being men.

The thing is to stick to what we know the scriptures say and talk about.  It is also to follow the prophet and adhere to what they said.

That said, if they suddenly reversed course and made Gay marriage something done in the Temple, I would probably be hesitant as this is something specifically targeted against in the Bible itself.  However, we have other things in the Bible (for example, feminism today is normally directly counter to what the Bible states, yet there is a movement that Eve was not glad of her choice as shown in the Book of Mormon but was very emotional at the time of temptation, catering a LOT to the woman's rights movement, as well as other statements regarding how women should act or do things in the Bible that we definitely do not adhere to today in the Church) that we do not follow today.  This is because of modern revelation.

Still, in that case, I'd probably want confirmation.

I'd still follow the Prophet.  Change occurs much in the Church.

If they would make the Proclamation to the Family official canon and integrated into the Scriptures I'd probably be far more comforted that things would not change on that front.  It would be FAR harder to change or toss out accepted canon that is this specific then it is to change other things.  It still could be done, but FAR harder.

Thus far they have been reluctant to do so, or so it seems. 

However, a change in the church in that regard WOULD make me hesitate, but that is why we need to have the Spirit to guide us and lead us.  Changes have happened before regarding Church teachings (and those who pretend it has not are only deceiving either themselves, or others, depending on their intent).  This is WHY we have a prophet and revelation.

Edited November 20, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Grunt]

39 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

A prime example is with Blacks and the Priesthood.  Prior to 1978 it was understood for the most part that those who were of African Descent would be the absolute last to receive the priesthood.  It would be done AFTER ALL other, after every single other person had either accepted or rejected it.  There would not be others.  This is how it was presented for many years and even before I joined the church.

At that time there were many members who said it was only a matter of time before the church had to do something.  There were those who said that eventually the church would capitulate.  There were others who said they believed in the words of the prophets and apostles who stated that this would not happen.  The church did not change simply because of society.  There were scriptures used to back up these items. 

Obviously, the entire game changed in 1978.

Today, we tend to say these prophets and apostles were speaking as men when they talked about this, OR, (and this is normally what I go with) that we and they misinterpreted what was supposed to be said or what was actually meant.

However, at the time, it was VERY clear what was said AND it was accepted as doctrine in the Church.

Doctrinally, what we say about them being wrong or that we misinterpreted what they meant would have been apostasy prior to 1975 at least from my viewpoint.

Closer to the our time with feministic ideas within the Church.

In regards to women being sealed to more than one man, this is still what we doctrinally practice for the living.  WE do not allow a woman to be sealed to more than one husband in this life.  If she is already sealed to one husband, we use the direction given by Brigham Young on the process that has to be done.  As per that direction, a man who has been sealed to a wife CANNOT have her taken away from him unless he consents to it.  The other out that we can see possibly from history is if there was either adultery, OR the husband falls away from the church itself.  If a husband is sealed to his wife, otherwise, he cannot be unsealed.  A man with a Higher priesthood authority could be sealed to her without a divorce necessary, but ONLY if her first husband consents.  In all cases, a husband must needs therefore consent prior to her being sealed to another except in specific cases (such as above with adultery and/or apostasy).  Even the Prophet could not steal a wife away from a husband who would not give her away as per Brigham Young.

I believe this is why we, even today, ask for a spousal consent for an ex-spouse to be sealed to another.  Sometimes if they do not consent, depending on the revelation of the Lord an ex-spouse can get resealed to another.  Normally this may be due to apostasy or adultery that was undivulged by another, or a similar reason.  There are cases though, where the spouse does not consent and thus the ex-spouse CANNOT get sealed to another.

This was NOT done in the temple for many years.  For the start, there was no way to attain consent from the dead unless you had direct revelation that only the First Presidency could receive.  There are MANY sealings done in the Temple and this is impossible for them to pray over every single situation.  Therefore, because you cannot comply with the law of consent, and because the order of things (which is why you do not seal a child to every adult that may have watched over them in their childhood, even if they had 10 different adults watch them at some point or other), women were ONLY sealed to their first husband unless otherwise specifically known. 

Yes, mistakes were made, but it was considered that less mistakes would be needed to be cleared up then if we did it like we do it now.  The understanding was that a sealing ordinance was just that, it literally was using the powers of the Lord that could command a mountain to move from one spot or another, that could seal the heavens up so no rain fell or cause it to rain that were sealing two individuals together.  They could choose to accept or reject it, but it was a SEALING ordinance with power and authority.  Thus, to use it to try to seal people willy nilly, or a woman to more than one man not only was not orderly in the order of things, but also was using the power to literally seal her to multiple men, something that would NEED to be cleared up in the hereafter (though it was never clarified HOW this was to be cleared up).

AS we see, doctrinally, we no longer adhere to this policy in regards to the dead.

There are many things that were considered doctrine in the past that we no longer adhere to.  When I was first in the church most of these things were acknowledged and talked about.  It is interesting the change in atmosphere and attitude that has occurred in the church since then.

Many things that would have been considered apostasy then are considered historical facts for members to discuss today, and many things that were considered doctrine previously are considered either apostasy today or instead of doctrines are related as prophets simply being men.

The thing is to stick to what we know the scriptures say and talk about.  It is also to follow the prophet and adhere to what they said.

That said, if they suddenly reversed course and made Gay marriage something done in the Temple, I would probably be hesitant as this is something specifically targeted against in the Bible itself.  However, we have other things in the Bible (for example, feminism today is normally directly counter to what the Bible states, yet there is a movement that Eve was not glad of her choice as shown in the Book of Mormon but was very emotional at the time of temptation, catering a LOT to the woman's rights movement, as well as other statements regarding how women should act or do things in the Bible that we definitely do not adhere to today in the Church) that we do not follow today.  This is because of modern revelation.

Still, in that case, I'd probably want confirmation.

I'd still follow the Prophet.  Change occurs much in the Church.

If they would make the Proclamation to the Family official canon and integrated into the Scriptures I'd probably be far more comforted that things would not change on that front.  It would be FAR harder to change or toss out accepted canon that is this specific then it is to change other things.  It still could be done, but FAR harder.

Thus far they have been reluctant to do so, or so it seems. 

However, a change in the church in that regard WOULD make me hesitate, but that is why we need to have the Spirit to guide us and lead us.  Changes have happened before regarding Church teachings (and those who pretend it has not are only deceiving either themselves, or others, depending on their intent).  This is WHY we have a prophet and revelation.

13

Did you not read what I wrote?  Again, you're comparing apples to oranges.  One is doctrine, the others are not.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

A prime example is with Blacks and the Priesthood.  Prior to 1978 it was understood for the most part that those who were of African Descent would be the absolute last to receive the priesthood.  It would be done AFTER ALL other, after every single other person had either accepted or rejected it.  There would not be others.  This is how it was presented for many years and even before I joined the church.

Can you provide a quote from General Conference or in the Church Handbook or some other official publication that stated it would be so?  I'm not talking about one-off talks in some miscellaneous function.  I'm talking about those sources that may be considered "official Church declarations or treatises on doctrine."

[JohnsonJones]

31 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Can you provide a quote from General Conference or in the Church Handbook or some other official publication that stated it would be so?  I'm not talking about one-off talks in some miscellaneous function.  I'm talking about those sources that may be considered "official Church declarations or treatises on doctrine."

Do you consider the Journal of Discourses official or unofficial?

How about those from General Conference?

The church has done a good job at scrubbing a LOT of the stuff from the easily available online resources so some of it would depend on how willing you are to dig into the hardcopies.

Some quotes are easily available online but the sources which quote them normally are not the most friendly to the church.  The reason they use them typically is to either point out changes the church has made in it's own teachings OR to point out hypocrisy in trying to change and hide things.

I SHOULD NOTE that when I brought up these examples it was NOT to bring focus on these items.  It was to point out that there have been changes in the past that many never thought would happen, and yet they did.  We are not the prophet (well, one of us may be, but it's not me, and if they are the prophet they are keeping it to themselves here) and so NONE of us know what may come in the future.

Because we do not know what the future holds, making certain statements along the lines of NEVER, or otherwise could indicate a resonance where we would apostatize from the church if such things DID happen.

I have known those who have already apostatized due to the change in our policy of baptizing children.  When it came out that we would not baptize the children of those who were engaged in a Gay Marriage there were those that decided to leave the church.  If it were to swing the other way...would a similar thing happen with others?

Are we so set that the way we are now is the ONLY way that if there was a change that drastic we could not accept it?

The way the thread was going about and how antagonistic it was made it seem that people were persecuting one individual for having a belief contrary to their own to the point that people were even suggesting an individual to not be baptized!?

What type of people are we to suggest something like that?

I might not have agreed with all that was said by that individual but there were some valid and thoughtful points brought up which were shouted down too quickly in my opinion.

I think that we SHOULD have a great fear for the upcoming generation in our church.  I think there could be some vast changes that come on the church for various reasons.  I have NO IDEA what they may be. 

I tried to express that past experience where I thought things would be one way and they have turned out entirely different to illustrate where, personally I have seen changes that I would have said would never have happened prior to their occurring.  it was to Illustrate...not to argue...or to bring around a side discussion of those points.  It was to show that what we may think today may not necessarily be what happens tomorrow or what happens in the future.

Which brings about what I was seeing in this thread.  People are SO dead set that they HAVE to be right that they will dictate to the LORD what MUST be done, rather than accept would MAY BE.

Today, we accept that Gay Marriage is against the doctrines and teachings of the Gospel, the Lord, and the church.  There is no argument about this, it is absolute and I think we all agree upon this.

In full expectation, MOST of us probably expect that this will be a standard belief till the end of time.

The question then is WHAT IF.  What IF it isn't.  What does one do then.  From the discussions on this thread I would expect about half the people who commented to apostatize from their statements and stance. 

The question I was posing then (and one answered that they felt that most would do a 180 degrees, and I would hope that is true, but we have seen when there are MAJOR changes in the church such as the Church leadership decision after Joseph Smith, or the fight to end Polygamy there become major rifts and major movements by sub-groups) is what WE would each choose to do.

Where do you stand?

With the principles one has espoused in the thread...or with the prophet and the church?

It could go both ways, and it is not necessarily just in regards to Gay Marriage (which I had HOPED my examples of my personal experience would illustrate, as they were examples of things that have changed, not to derail the conversation onto them, but to illustrate that it is not necessarily JUST Gay Marriage but could be a whole gamut of things), but many other areas.

It could be that we double down and become even stronger in our stance against Homosexual activities (but at how the membership is going and how the church appears to be going, unless they make Proclamation to the Family canon or something like it [which does not appear to be in the future at all] I'd HIGHLY doubt that is going to occur either] or many other things.

I feel that MANY changes are coming to the church in the next decade.  There will be things that are just as challenging if not more so than anything we may have discussed in this thread thus far (and that INCLUDES Gay Marriage in the Temple).

I'm wondering how many will weather it and how many will stay faithful regardless.  

To ME it becomes more about whether one has a testimony of the Prophet and has the spirit to guide them.

I think the changes are just beginning and there may be some FAR more radical changes on the horizon.  Without the spirit to confirm and a strong resolution to follow the prophet regardless of what is decided or revealed I think many may find it FAR more challenging to accept than simply whether or not Gay's are allowed to do sealings in the Temple.

Which means that yes, I think some very radically strong changes are coming to the Church, or at least there is a strong possibility of it in the next decade.

[Guest]

JJ,

WAAYYY too long a post to simply say yes or no.  Or to provide the quote.  Just post them.

45 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Do you consider the Journal of Discourses official or unofficial?

The Journal of Discourses -- depends on if they were from General conference.

Quote

How about those from General Conference?

 Are you even reading what I write?  I specifically listed General Conference.

Quote

I SHOULD NOTE that when I brought up these examples it was NOT to bring focus on these items.  It was to point out that there have been changes in the past that many never thought would happen, and yet they did.  We are not the prophet (well, one of us may be, but it's not me, and if they are the prophet they are keeping it to themselves here) and so NONE of us know what may come in the future.

And you are still not acknowledging the same thing we've been saying a dozen times over.  There is a difference between policy and doctrine.  There is a difference between the individual opinions of general authorities vs. their revealed word.

The particular items may not be what you wanted to focus on.  But when you use them specifically to support your position, we have to look at them.

It has been my understanding that the vast majority of what was said in the past was personal opinion.  But if it shows up in General Conference, then it certainly leans towards the revelation side.  That's why I asked for them.

But you're just going to ignore all this, aren't you?  You're still not going to simply post the quotes.

If they are only found in anti-mormon sites, then don't link to them.  Just post the quotes themselves -- IF you are absolutely sure they are legitimate quotes.  If they are, they can be verified by other sources.

You're still not going to provide the quotes, are you?  Or if you do, you'll squish them in the middle of another marathon post.  Why do you keep doing this?

You've said all you're going to say.  I've read it all.  And I haven't even said any of it was wrong.  I just want some quotes to verify that all you "heard" that was preached wasn't simply "common knowledge" as opposed to "revelation".  I'm looking for those quotes that we can tell from context that they were revelation.

Edited November 20, 2018 by Guest

[Just_A_Guy]

All I know is, if you have any heartburn over the prospect of the Church eventually decreeing that Mountain Meadows was just a warm-up act and that we each have to slit the throat of the neatest four-year-old:  that just goes to show that you are insufficiently devoted to the prophets, too faithless to accept modern revelation, and a bigoted and despicable human being generally.

Prove me wrong!

Edited November 20, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[lostinwater]

Here are a few.

But i am not trying to tear anyone down here.  Just trying to stand up with @JohnsonJones - because i think he is absolutely right that the narrative on race has changed - a lot.  And it's *great* that they have changed a lot.  Abraham Lincoln said some racist things by our standards.  George Washington bent over backwards to keep his slaves.  People are more than the worst thing they ever said. 

FairMormon actually is one of the best sources for a lot of these quotes.  They have their own interpretations/justifications for what was said, but at least they do quote a lot of the common ones.  My ability to link to much else without getting it yanked is limited (understandable).

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/For_my_Wife_and_Children_(Letter_to_my_Wife)/Chapter_8

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Mormon_Doctrine_and_race_issues

 

 

 

[SpiritDragon]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

The question then is WHAT IF.  What IF it isn't.  What does one do then.  From the discussions on this thread I would expect about half the people who commented to apostatize from their statements and stance. 

I can only speak for myself personally. If the church leadership proclaims that homosexuality is righteous, it is my belief that the church will have apostatized, not me or anyone else who leaves. Having spent much of my life exploring other faiths and finding the LDS teachings to be the only faith I can fully accept, I would likely wind up agnostic after a renewed search for truth elsewhere.

There are core principles that God cannot excuse Himself from. The very definition of what is sin is one of them. Changes to "how" we go about the work of salvation are not that big a deal, the underlying message is still the same. Changing the "requirements" of salvation is an entirely different story. Whether we ward teach, home teach, or minister is really not critical, but whether we keep the law of chastity or not - the commandments can't change and God be a consistent God we can put our trust in.

[JohnsonJones]

6 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

I can only speak for myself personally. If the church leadership proclaims that homosexuality is righteous, it is my belief that the church will have apostatized, not me or anyone else who leaves. Having spent much of my life exploring other faiths and finding the LDS teachings to be the only faith I can fully accept, I would likely wind up agnostic after a renewed search for truth elsewhere.

There are core principles that God cannot excuse Himself from. The very definition of what is sin is one of them. Changes to "how" we go about the work of salvation are not that big a deal, the underlying message is still the same. Changing the "requirements" of salvation is an entirely different story. Whether we ward teach, home teach, or minister is really not critical, but whether we keep the law of chastity or not - the commandments can't change and God be a consistent God we can put our trust in.

You are a little late to that game.  I'm thinking you meant to say that if the church proclaims homosexual acts are righteous, not homosexuality itself.

In the late 20th century it was made clear that someone who was homosexual could be a righteous individual.  It was NOT being homosexual that was unrighteous, it was ACTING upon those inclinations.  Thus, someone who was homosexual but followed the Laws of God and thus the law of chastity was just as righteous as someone who did not.

On the otherhand, someone breaking the law of chastity (homosexual acts are included in this, as well as fornication and any other intimacy of that sort outside the bonds of marriage) have been considered sins since the beginning of the Church (as far as I know).

I do find it gratifying that you take up the discussion point though (as it seems most want to take offense at the examples I used to illustrate rather than discuss the actual question I posed and try [to a degree successfully] to get me sidetracked off the REAL question I posed for discussion rather than talk about it in detail).

Quote

I can only speak for myself personally. If the church leadership proclaims that homosexuality is righteous, it is my belief that the church will have apostatized, not me or anyone else who leaves.

There are core principles that God cannot excuse Himself from. The very definition of what is sin is one of them.

Changing the "requirements" of salvation is an entirely different story

I cut your post a little (though it is posted in full at the top of this post) for the specific items I am looking at in the quote above.

This hits to the heart of what I am talking about and asking.  How strongly do we feel about the Prophet and his ability to receive revelation.  If he stated something that we did not feel conjoins to our personal beliefs, perhaps even something very strongly, what do we decide and what do we do?

Would you pray or give any thought to wondering about it or pondering about it?  What if you got confirmation from the Spirit that this was the right decision or that the Prophet was speaking as the Prophet?

For me, I'm not sure what I would do.  The first thing I would do would be seek out the spirit and see what it told me.  It would be a VERY hard thing to accept.  If the spirit confirmed it was right though, or that this was a revelation the Prophet received, I would go full in and support it. 

Since I have joined the church there are teachings that have done a complete 180 degree turn around.  I've seen it happen.  (Once again, the following is an EXAMPLE, not something I want to devolve into a discussion about specifically, but only used as an example thereof).

A prime example is with the translation of the Book of Mormon.  The stories of detractors were not unknown.  David Whitmer was one of the three witnesses, but at the time he was coming out with some of the stories detractors love to use he was trying to validate another individual who claimed the ability to use something very SIMILAR to a Seer Stone.  However, his exposure to translation was much more limited and normally could call into question his ability to talk about such things.

The words which were given by those who knew the prophet but also remained FAITHFUL were considered pretty reliable.  Thus, the accepted story dealt more with the usage of the Urim and Thummim in translation.  To talk about such things as the Seer Stone or to imply it's usage as we would today would be considered to many complete apostasy.  Yet, today, it is accepted generally within the church and espoused in various sources that people are reading today that are given official sanction by the Church.

Two different stories, which historians would use both of.  However, for the church narrative, the narrative has changed in ways that what was once considered apostasy is now considered a teaching, and what may have once been considered a teaching is considered naïve or at least incomplete information and ignorance of the "real" story.

The narratives and teachings of the Church have changed to a degree.  Some are more drastic than others.  Some sneak in without much ado (such as the change in how we view who and who cannot do Temple ordinances, or the changes in the Temple ordinances themselves), while others gain much more traction (the differences of the narrative between the early 70s and the understanding of them in regards to Blacks and the Priesthood vs. that which people apply to it now).

To be Clear, I DO NOT KNOW what the future will hold.

However, I think that some pretty drastic changes may be on the horizon.

Which brings me to your statement which I think may hold true for many.  If the church did something like that, what would people do?

This brings the Blacks and the Priesthood to the forefront.  Today many say that the "policy" the church instituted was inspired by men speaking as men instead of from the Prophet receiving revelation on this matter.

If that is true, than it stands to reason that they would ALSO believe that many things taught in the church MAY actually be inspired by a prophet's personal views as a Man rather than from revelation.

If one believes that, then the idea that there is growing acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual relations, acts, and marriages should not just alarm, but create angst.  If the above is TRUE, that means it is ONLY A MATTER OF TIME before it becomes accepted and is a policy within the church.

If it were to happen, it probably would not be blatant at first.  It would come in similar to the manner in which who can perform priesthood ordinances in the temple has occurred, though based even MORE on historical occurrences where such sealings have been approved of by prior prophets.  Some may not even realize a change was happening.  Most likely they would fall back onto historical precedence as an excuse to start allowing sealings of this sort.  Men USED to be sealed to men in the Temple, but not in marriage.  It was via sealing for Father to son as adopted sons sealed to others of higher priesthood authority.  This was done even for men who were already sons of others.  This would be a first step I imagine, and it probably would be presented in a way that no one would actually think about the ramifications that could later come of it.

The other end of the spectrum are those who are like me.  I typically accept that what the prophet has said in regards to teaching and revelation (whether past or current) that directly changes what the church does comes from revelation.  That means I have followed the teachings and order of the church, even when I personally may not have a testimony of it.  I suppose one would call me fanatical in that measure.  As I have a testimony of the Prophet, even if I do not have a testimony of what they may have changed (though hopefully it would come) I choose to follow what they say and direct.

However, if something is stated that goes directly against what we feel is right, what do WE choose to do?  What is OUR decision and OUR choice?

I appreciate your answer on this, and I think it would be a hard choice for members in any situation.  I think there may be some harder choices with deeper ramifications that may be coming (as was talked about earlier this year, the idea is that the Prophet is just beginning to make changes, that the changes coming have just begun...which implies greater and perhaps even more drastic changes in the future).

I don't expect something that will change the churches position on Gay Marriage anytime soon (just to be clear), but it can make one ponder what one would choose if something in that direction DID change.

I expect that though I do not think their position will change regarding Homosexual actions or Gay Marriage that there may be other things that are tackled in the next few years that WILL be just as challenging if not moreso that could change the entire face of the how we perceive the gospel and how we teach it in the next decade.

I think in some ways it is important to determine HOW we will act if/when that happens so when it does, we already know what we are going to do and have the peace within us to act accordingly rather than the chaos that some may feel in their hearts when they realize what has or is occurring.

 

[Tyme]

8 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

I can only speak for myself personally. If the church leadership proclaims that homosexuality is righteous, it is my belief that the church will have apostatized, not me or anyone else who leaves. Having spent much of my life exploring other faiths and finding the LDS teachings to be the only faith I can fully accept, I would likely wind up agnostic after a renewed search for truth elsewhere.

There are core principles that God cannot excuse Himself from. The very definition of what is sin is one of them. Changes to "how" we go about the work of salvation are not that big a deal, the underlying message is still the same. Changing the "requirements" of salvation is an entirely different story. Whether we ward teach, home teach, or minister is really not critical, but whether we keep the law of chastity or not - the commandments can't change and God be a consistent God we can put our trust in.

That means you should have empathy for those who leave the church due to its gay stance. It's essentially the same thing just a different position.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, lostinwater said:

Here are a few.

But i am not trying to tear anyone down here.  Just trying to stand up with @JohnsonJones - because i think he is absolutely right that the narrative on race has changed - a lot.  And it's *great* that they have changed a lot.  Abraham Lincoln said some racist things by our standards.  George Washington bent over backwards to keep his slaves.  People are more than the worst thing they ever said. 

FairMormon actually is one of the best sources for a lot of these quotes.  They have their own interpretations/justifications for what was said, but at least they do quote a lot of the common ones.  My ability to link to much else without getting it yanked is limited (understandable).

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/For_my_Wife_and_Children_(Letter_to_my_Wife)/Chapter_8

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Mormon_Doctrine_and_race_issues

 

 

 

Thank you.  That's all I asked for.  I don't know why it was so difficult for JJ to simply post some quotes.

[Guest]

I'm going to explain the tripod one more time.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng

This is as I see it based on all the doctrines on the topic that I'm aware of, as well as my own personal experience on the topic.

• Scriptural basis
  • There was a scriptural basis for believing the ban was commanded of the Lord.  Only one (according to Pres. McKay).
  • There was no scriptural basis for the explanations given for the reasons behind it.
• Prophets
  • No prophets ever claimed revelation on the subject of WHY.  (If I'm wrong about that, I'd like to see that correction). 
  • As I delve into the context of all such quotes regarding the explanations, I never got the sense that anyone claimed "Thus saith the Lord".  I know, they don't need to.  But context matters.  And the context in which any of these statements were made never struck me in that tone.  It always appeared to me to be speculation and rationalizations to explain things in a way that made the people of the time more comfortable.  It is more telling of the weaknesses of the people of the time, that this is what it took to make them "comfortable".
  • Additional apostles and prophets weighed in on the topic believing that the previous explanations given were doctrine.  So, they continued talking as if the conventional wisdom were simply fact.  None of them claimed revelation to that effect.  One does not need revelation to use common belief as part of an explanation of a larger point.  Context matters.  And just because that was used as an example of a larger point, does not make the larger point invalid.  Just replace it with another valid example, and the larger point is still valid. (Monarch Butterfly).
• Personal revelation
  • (Admitting that I've only had conversations with a couple hundred people about this) I know of no individual who has ever A) prayed about the why and B) Were confirmed by the Spirit that Blacks were somehow less valiant in the pre-mortal life.
  • Everyone I've spoken with are just parroting what they've heard from others.
  • But I have heard many who claim revelation that the principle was true and commanded of the Lord.  But the "why" is another issue.

How does this compare to gay marriage?

• Scriptural basis
  • Multiple scriptures have been provided in this thread declaring homosexual acts to be a sin -- even an abomination in the eyes of God.
  • This language indicates it is an eternal principle, not just a dispensational commandment.
  • Recognize the difference between an eternal principle and a temporary commandment for a dispensation or even a shorter period.
• Prophets
  • Every prophet has always indicated homosexual acts are a perversion of the sacred power of procreation.
  • Every prophet has declared it to be a sin and abomination in the eyes of God.
  • Every prophet has used scriptures to explain their position.
  • We know that sexual sins are among the most grave sins.  This is an eternal principle because of the very basis of eternal progression.
• Personal Revelation
  • Those claiming they have personal revelation that gay marriage is acceptable to the Lord have not looked at the other two legs of the stool.
  • Those claiming they have personal revelation that gay marriage is a sin, agree with the other two legs as indicated.

Edited November 20, 2018 by Guest

[SpiritDragon]

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

You are a little late to that game.  I'm thinking you meant to say that if the church proclaims homosexual acts are righteous, not homosexuality itself.

In the late 20th century it was made clear that someone who was homosexual could be a righteous individual.  It was NOT being homosexual that was unrighteous, it was ACTING upon those inclinations.  Thus, someone who was homosexual but followed the Laws of God and thus the law of chastity was just as righteous as someone who did not.

I generally differentiate the two as SSA or homosexuality. 

What I'm saying is that the standards of morality have been set forth. The Church is as likely to say pornography is now okay as it is to say homosexuality (the act) is okay. The prophet can receive revelations regarding the direction of the church, but the core principles of the gospel are unchanging. We believe the first principles and ordinances of the gospel are first, faith on the Lord Jesus Christ. Second repentance. Third, baptism by immersion. Fourth, the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

A change to the homosexuality issue (or the murder issue, or theft issue, or chastity in general...) strikes at the heart of these fundamentals. A god who flip flops on what His commandments are is not a God we can exercise faith in with confidence. What is the point of repentance if the rules change, why not just complain on the other side, "if I lived in this or that time my sin would have been righteous" there is no balance of justice and mercy there, just inconsistency which again takes away the faith necessary to call upon God to help in the process of repentance. By changing what needs to be repented of, the requirements of baptism are changed and apparently what the Holy Ghost could never abide previously will now be sanctified... The very nature of what constitutes sin is not negotiable, if flies in the face of the balance between mercy and justice. God would cease to be God.

13 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.

Edited November 20, 2018 by SpiritDragon

[Guest]

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

You are a little late to that game.  I'm thinking you meant to say that if the church proclaims homosexual acts are righteous, not homosexuality itself.

In the late 20th century it was made clear that someone who was homosexual could be a righteous individual.  It was NOT being homosexual that was unrighteous, it was ACTING upon those inclinations.  Thus, someone who was homosexual but followed the Laws of God and thus the law of chastity was just as righteous as someone who did not.

On the otherhand, someone breaking the law of chastity (homosexual acts are included in this, as well as fornication and any other intimacy of that sort outside the bonds of marriage) have been considered sins since the beginning of the Church (as far as I know).

Also keep in mind, dwelling on the feelings and fantasizing are also "acts".  They are mental acts which are also sinful.

It is merely the trait of same-sex attraction that is not considered a sin any more than it is a sin for me to see a beautiful woman and think she's very (sexually) attractive.

Edited November 20, 2018 by Guest

[SpiritDragon]

1 hour ago, Tyme said:

That means you should have empathy for those who leave the church due to its gay stance. It's essentially the same thing just a different position.

If you can't see how absurd this statement is I don't think there is much hope for you.

[zil]

20 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm going to explain the tripod one more time.

Reason has failed in this thread.  JJ is endorsing extreme prophet-following¹ by suggesting acceptance of SSM as the test.  Why not use human sacrifice as the test?  That would be a closer comparison to SSM than the priesthood ban, but I doubt he can see that because (a) he appears to think mass acceptance of wickedness may actually be a predictor of what's right, (b) he seems to see all these only from the "how the human feels" point of view (packing the sinner in with the righteous who were made to await priesthood blessings), and (c) he can't seem to follow logic.

10 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

A god who flip flops on what is commandments are is not a God we can exercise faith in with confidence. What is the point of repentance if the rules change, why not just complain on the other side, "if I lived in this or that time my sin would have been righteous" there is no balance of justice and mercy there, just inconsistency which again takes away the faith necessary to call upon God to help in the process of repentance. By changing what needs to be repented of, the requirements of baptism are changed and apparently what the Holy Ghost could never abide previously will now be sanctified... The very nature of what constitutes sin is not negotiable, if flies in the face of the balance between mercy and justice. God would cease to be God.

¹And then in the same post, he suggests we can't trust anything found in scripture or past prophetic statements - because they might all be wrong - and he uses the priesthood ban and procedural changes to some unnamed temple ordinance (as if it would kill him to just say "endowment", "initiatory", or "sealing") as evidence that some past prophet must have been wrong, and if wrong on these, why not wrong on the fundamental nature of God, reproduction, the family, or pretty much anything else.  It's as if he thinks one cannot trust those truths which have been taught from the beginning, not even the ones that have been taught in abundance from numerous different angles.

What's more, he's created a Catch-22: Follow the prophet, but because we can't trust that prophets are right, be prepared for him to do a complete 180 on anything and everything we've ever been taught by prophets.

Huh!?  All rational thought has been tossed out the window in favor of "follow the prophet, who might prove that it was a mistake ever to have followed a prophet"!

[Just_A_Guy]

4 hours ago, zil said:

Reason has failed in this thread.  JJ is endorsing extreme prophet-following¹ by suggesting acceptance of SSM as the test.  Why not use human sacrifice as the test?  That would be a closer comparison to SSM than the priesthood ban, but I doubt he can see that because (a) he appears to think mass acceptance of wickedness may actually be a predictor of what's right, (b) he seems to see all these only from the "how the human feels" point of view (packing the sinner in with the righteous who were made to await priesthood blessings), and (c) he can't seem to follow logic.

¹And then in the same post, he suggests we can't trust anything found in scripture or past prophetic statements - because they might all be wrong - and he uses the priesthood ban and procedural changes to some unnamed temple ordinance (as if it would kill him to just say "endowment", "initiatory", or "sealing") as evidence that some past prophet must have been wrong, and if wrong on these, why not wrong on the fundamental nature of God, reproduction, the family, or pretty much anything else.  It's as if he thinks one cannot trust those truths which have been taught from the beginning, not even the ones that have been taught in abundance from numerous different angles.

What's more, he's created a Catch-22: Follow the prophet, but because we can't trust that prophets are right, be prepared for him to do a complete 180 on anything and everything we've ever been taught by prophets.

Huh!?  All rational thought has been tossed out the window in favor of "follow the prophet, who might prove that it was a mistake ever to have followed a prophet"!

IIRC, back when the forum software allowed for post “signatures”, @The Folk Prophet had one saying something along the lines of “If the prophet can be wrong, then the second prophet who says the first prophet was wrong can also be wrong.”

[zil]

23 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

IIRC, back when the forum software allowed for post “signatures”, @The Folk Prophet had one saying something along the lines of “If the prophet can be wrong, then the second prophet who says the first prophet was wrong can also be wrong.”

And the problem with the argument that previous prophets were wrong (for not doing it the way we do now) or that current prophets are wrong (for not continuing to do things the way we used to), is that we have no evidence whatsoever that either was wrong.  Doing things differently now than we did then is not evidence that either was wrong.  I have yet to see the evidence that the differences are actually differences in doctrine.  They are only differences in policy / procedure. ::sigh::

Edited November 20, 2018 by zil

[Vort]

17 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

The church has done a good job at scrubbing a LOT of the stuff from the easily available online resources so some of it would depend on how willing you are to dig into the hardcopies.

Bull crap.

[anatess2]

24 minutes ago, Vort said:

Bull crap.

@zil needs to give you some pointers on wordsmithing.

[person0]

26 minutes ago, Vort said:

Bull crap.