The next logical step


Vort
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, Vort said:

And the world is a better, more beautiful place for it. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

The problem isn't that Vort isn't a nice guy or disciple of Christ. A big problem i'm seeing on this thread is that people make assumptions that aren't accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
6 minutes ago, Tyme said:

The problem isn't that Vort isn't a nice guy or disciple of Christ. A big problem i'm seeing on this thread is that people make assumptions that aren't accurate.

Actually, the problem is you expect to spout things that 90% of people here disagree with and insult them when they :: gasp:: dare to defend themselves or church teaching. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Actually, the problem is you expect to spout things that 90% of people here disagree with and insult them when they :: gasp:: dare to defend themselves or church teaching. 

 

Give me examples of how I'm insulting people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Vort said:

And the world is a better, more beautiful place for it. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Now, waitaminute.  Didn't you compare yourself to Lucky Blue?

Would the world be a better place if all men learned The Smoulder?the_smoulder_by_selenejessabelle1262-d3gbah5.thumb.jpg.c5455299bbd0662b1ea4e4c40652c540.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

1360604664_ScreenShot2018-11-19at2_02_23PM.thumb.png.001bccffcadc621332c6755596e229dd.png

Insinuating that someone is "lower intelligence" is insulting. 

I was just informing him what I've heard intelligent people think about that kind of thinking.

I've never thought he wasn't intelligent. I think he's a pretty smart guy from what I can see on this forum.

Edited by Tyme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe this is something that people can identify with and maybe not.

Gay Marriage in some ways is equivalent to some changes in the Temple that have already occurred in my lifetime.  Woman's rights have completely entered into the Temple in ways that probably would have caused most individuals in the early 70s to go aghast.  I cannot go into detail (as it is the temple) but the very DOCTRINE in one area changed in relation to Wives and Husbands.

Today, a more feminist feeling is encroached, even within the ceremony itself if you go to most temples which do not have live ceremonies.  The first time I saw it I was not comfortable with that type of change.  However, I realize it's been changed for the modern generation that does not agree doctrinally (or would say it was sexist) in relation to what it used to be.  That change is actually a pretty major change in my opinion.

The same would go with the idea that Women could be sealed to more than one husband.  Doctrinally that was brought up in the past.  It was shot down doctrinally for VERY SPECIFIC reasons...all of which are ignored today. 

The biggest on the block, however, is the one probably no one batted an eyelash at today.  Unendowed Non-melchizedek Priesthood holders doing ordinances in the temple is far more than just a policy change to a degree.  Once again this deals with the temple, and so it's not something we can really discuss in length (though I suppose it depends on how seriously you take the temple and what goes on inside, for me, I take it pretty seriously), but previously it was stated that the reasons certain things were done a certain way was because of necessary and mandatory things commanded of by the Lord.  It's the same reason if one was a male that they had to have the Melchizedek priesthood to even participate in ordinances themselves.  One needed to have the Melchizedek Priesthood to perform ordinances in the Temple if they were Male.  This is why we still have it that Priests with the Aaronic Priesthood cannot go and do initiatories or the Endowment ceremony.  However, the reasoning was basically the same for why they could not participate in those and could not be the actual individual officiating in other ordinances. 

These are things that if asked 30 years ago I would have said that there is no way they would ever occur.  Doctrinally they could not happen.  Yet, here we are. 

Does that mean I toss away my faith? 

NO.

Why not?

Because I believe we are led by a Prophet.

However it also has made me think that I have no idea what may happen in the church tomorrow.  We used to excommunicate individuals for fornication FAR more than we do today.  It was FAR more likely.  The Law of Chastity being broken was dealt with FAR more seriously.

Yes, we still teach about it and that we should not break it, but the penalties associated with breaking it are FAR less severe.  In this way, I'd see us more around the late 80s in how we treat it than how we acted about breaking the Law of Chastity in earlier decades.

So, the question I think is valid.

We can say it will never happen, but, with MANY things that we have said that with...well...here we are.

We know what the policies are today.  We know where the church stands currently.  We do not necessarily know what may happen in the future, no matter HOW convinced we are that something will never change.

As I mentioned, if you had asked me in the early 70s about Blacks and the Priesthood, I would have told you it was never going to happen in my lifetime.  I could have given you quotation after quotation that supported it given by Prophets and apostles of our modern time.  There is NO way I could have realized what was going to happen later in the decade.  It happened. 

The matter than is NOT whether or not it will happen, it may or may not.  The question is if something that we feel would never happen...DOES happen...what do we do then?

Do we apostasize?  Or do we stick with the Prophet and the Leaders of the Church?

I've faced this idea already in my life and made my choice...but with how stalwart some are in saying something will NEVER happen here I wonder what they would actually choose if it DID happen.

 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

1360604664_ScreenShot2018-11-19at2_02_23PM.thumb.png.001bccffcadc621332c6755596e229dd.png

Insinuating that someone is "lower intelligence" is insulting. 

OH.  So that's what Vort was talking about.

You know, I was making an extra special effort to really be forgiving and reach out to him.  I was truly sincere in that effort.  He said that he accepted that guessture.  I felt a surge of peace and a bit of love toward him for the next page or so.  Until he called anyone who disagreed with him as ignorant and heartless, then continued to judge them as not following the Spirit.

Wow.  Pearls before swine indeed.

I still tried reasoning with him.  But he was unapologetic after that.  So, what was the point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Woman's rights have completely entered into the Temple in ways that probably would have caused most individuals in the early 70s to go aghast.  I cannot go into detail (as it is the temple) but the very DOCTRINE in one area changed in relation to Wives and Husbands.

Can you at least indicate what year the change took place that you're talking about?  From that, I believe many could extrapolate what you're talking about.  Without something to go on, you're just playing with the wind.

Quote

Today, a more feminist feeling is encroached, even within the ceremony itself if you go to most temples which do not have live ceremonies.  The first time I saw it I was not comfortable with that type of change.  However, I realize it's been changed for the modern generation that does not agree doctrinally (or would say it was sexist) in relation to what it used to be.  That change is actually a pretty major change in my opinion.

Again, no idea what you're talking about.  Believe it or not, much more is talked about (by Church Leaders) outside the temple than we lay member usually talk about.

Quote

The same would go with the idea that Women could be sealed to more than one husband.  Doctrinally that was brought up in the past.  It was shot down doctrinally for VERY SPECIFIC reasons...all of which are ignored today. 

No, doctrinally, that still hasn't changed.  A woman CAN be sealed to only one husband.  The earthly ordiance for multiple husbands can be performed.  In eternity, she is sealed to only one husband.  Again, this is a procedural thing because for now we mortals look through a glass darkly.

Quote

The biggest on the block, however, is the one probably no one batted an eyelash at today.  Unendowed Non-melchizedek Priesthood holders doing ordinances in the temple is far more than just a policy change to a degree. 

If you're talking about priests baptizing for the dead, that was announced over the pulpit via direction from the Brethren.  So, this is not spilling any secrets that the Brethren have not authorized.

And again, what changed doctrinally?  Do priests not have authority to baptize?  Has that not always been the case?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

There is none. We move on. 

So, how does a gator look when doing The Smoulder?

Inquiring minds want to know.  You have to take a picture of you trying it and send it to me... along with the video of LG laughing at you as you try it.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

As I mentioned, if you had asked me in the early 70s about Blacks and the Priesthood, I would have told you it was never going to happen in my lifetime.  I could have given you quotation after quotation that supported it given by Prophets and apostles of our modern time.  There is NO way I could have realized what was going to happen later in the decade.  It happened. 

The matter than is NOT whether or not it will happen, it may or may not.  The question is if something that we feel would never happen...DOES happen...what do we do then?

Do we apostasize?  Or do we stick with the Prophet and the Leaders of the Church?

Even if we ignore all the comments, observations, quotes, and arguments supporting the view that gay marriages will never be solemnized in the temple, and we place it on par with EVERYthing else that you mentioned, we still come back to the tripod I mentioned.

  • Scriptures
  • Prophets
  • Holy Ghost

We always go with the tripod. But too many today only claim one, maybe two, and ignore the third (Prophets).  Yet they claim certainty.  I never did until I saw all three together.  How anyone can be certain with only one or two legs is something I cannot fathom.

If you don't have ALL THREE, then you have to admit you're on uncertain ground.  I was on uncertain ground because I did not understand the doctrine of the priesthood ban.  But did I go and preach it was wrong?  No.  I simply said that I don't understand it and I don't have a testimony of it.  And I continued to question it.  NEVER did I say that people were stupid or racist for believing it was ordained of God.  I simply admitted that I'm not on board with it because I didn't really understand (and no one provided) the proper scriptural background for it.  I had the words of some prophets -- which, quite honestly didn't ring true to me.  And I had no spiritual confirmation that it was true.

Then a strange thing happened.  The ban was lifted.  My immediate reaction was.  "So everyone else was wrong."  But over the years, I've come to find out that I was the one who was not in tune with the Spirit.  I prayed about it AFTER the ban was lifted.  And I finally received a testimony that the Lord did want the ban in place for his own reasons.  And that purpose was done.  Now the priesthood is had among blacks.  I found it peculiar that while the ban was in place I did NOT receive a testimony.  But AFTER it was lifted, I received a testimony that the ban was ordained by God.

That was two legs of the tripod.  Only recently did I see the third leg of the tripod (scriptures) on that matter.  Now with all three legs, I know that the ban was ordained of God and it was lifted by God.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Can you at least indicate what year the change took place that you're talking about?  From that, I believe many could extrapolate what you're talking about.  Without something to go on, you're just playing with the wind.

Two cases, one deals directly with the ordinance, so, unfortunately I cannot get more explicit than that.  Just know that the ordinance itself has changed, and some of that change makes the doctrine different.

17 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

No, doctrinally, that still hasn't changed.  A woman CAN be sealed to only one husband.  The earthly ordiance for multiple husbands can be performed.  In eternity, she is sealed to only one husband.  Again, this is a procedural thing because for now we mortals look through a glass darkly.

AS per multiple answers to questions that were asked (normally by anti-Mormons in the past)  IT is the same in why we do NOT seal children to multiple parents and into any family that they had ever had dealings with.  We are a church of order and follow the order set by the Lord.  A woman was to be sealed to her FIRST husband unless certain circumstances occurred.  We still practice this order of things for the living which shows the discrepancy that we practice with ordinances with the dead today.  What applied for the living were applied due to eternal principles and as such also applied to the ordinances for the dead. 

Obviously, this has changed.

21 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

If you're talking about priests baptizing for the dead, that was announced over the pulpit via direction from the Brethren.  So, this is not spilling any secrets that the Brethren have not authorized.

And again, what changed doctrinally?  Do priests not have authority to baptize?  Has that not always been the case?

I'm not sure what your point is.  If Gay Marriage was announced as being approved for Temple work over the pulpit via the direction of the Brethren we'd have a similar statement.

Doctrinally Priests have the authority to Baptize.  Previously, this did NOT apply to ordinances for the dead.  They had the power to baptize, but because they did NOT have the Higher Priesthood, the authority of the Melchizedek priesthood they were barred from the higher ordinances thereof.  ANY Temple ordinance was considered a Higher Ordinance.  Baptism for the Dead was considered a separate ordinance than one for the living.  This is the same for a Marriage.  That done for the living in a church is NOT the same as one done in the Temple, even if one proclaims it to be for all time an eternity in the LDS chapel.

Another way to view it, is that the Aaronic Priesthood is for earthly ordinances.  Those that have effect upon us on the Earth.  Baptism is one that continues after, but is an entry to show our acceptance of the Lord.

The ordinances of the Temple are for those of a HIGHER magnitude.

Another way to view it is that the Aaronic Priesthood can officiate over any temporal ordinance or ordinances that can be done outside of the Temple.  The Melchizedek is required for those that deal specifically with eternal ordinances, or those that deal directly with power and authority from the eternal world. 

Hard to explain it outside the Temple, but basically, the Temple ordinances were to be done under the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood due to the nature of WHAT they dealt with.  This included ordinances for those who were no longer living.  Thus, the change to who could perform baptisms for the Dead is actually a pretty huge change, both doctrinally and policy wise whether people choose to see it or not.

That does not mean I cannot see it as you have suggested (Aaronic Priesthood are given the explicit statement that they are able to perform baptisms), but that the doctrine behind why they could not before has tangentially changed.  It could open the door to far more radical changes later...

I don't know what the future holds with the Church today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course we live with continuing revelation and an open canon.  

Hypothetically the Church could one day green-light gay marriage.  Hypothetically it could also restore polygamy, or approve of pederasty, or endorse the use of psychedelic mushrooms in lieu of bread during sacrament meetings, or administer the second anointing to anyone who runs over an old lady in a crosswalk.  Perhaps someday we will demand that instead of floral bouquets, new brides toss out live cobras.  Could happen.  One never knows WHAT that rascally Jehovah might ordain next—He’s such a card, after all!

But, one can mention this only a finite number of times before it becomes obvious that one is posing such scenarios less as a disinterested academic exercise about a hypothetical future, and more as battlefield preparation to excuse disobedience and damnable perversions in the here-and-now.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Of course we live with continuing revelation and an open canon.  

Hypothetically the Church could one day green-light gay marriage.  Hypothetically it could also restore polygamy, or approve of pederasty, or endorse the use of psychedelic mushrooms in lieu of bread during sacrament meetings, or administer the second anointing to anyone who runs over an old lady in a crosswalk.  Perhaps someday we will demand that instead of floral bouquets, new brides toss out live cobras.  Could happen.  One never knows WHAT that rascally Jehovah might ordain next—He’s such a card, after all!

But, one can mention this only a finite number of times before it becomes obvious that one is posing such scenarios less as a disinterested academic exercise about a potential future, and more as battlefield preparation to excuse disobedience and damnable perversions in the here-and-now.

It is definitely something the church is against today.

If you asked me today, I side with the idea that I cannot ever see the church changing this policy, it's belief, or it's doctrine.

Experience has told me that what I think is not always what happens.

What I find interesting about the thread is how absolute people are with their statements in what the church will do in the future.

It beggars the question then, What IF?

How strongly convinced are they that something WILL NEVER happen?  If they are that convinced it is against the commandments of the Lord...what happens if the church decides to do exactly what they feel will never happen?

It's happened to me (which is really what my examples are about, not to really argue about them).  I made my choice on what to do and where to follow.  I stick with the church and the leaders of the church.

However, with how strongly some are making their statements, IF the church ever decided exactly opposite of what they feel would never happen...what would they choose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

lololol! I had to Google that to see what it was.

I gotta tell you that apparently this does not look good on Asians.

I'm a pretty good impersonator, both in voice and in body.  My facial expressions are uncanny.  My intonations are spot on.  But when I did the Smoulder, my wife and all my kids just laughed at me.  Not only because it was supposed to be humorous, but because it . simply . does . not . look  . good . on . Asians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

It is definitely something the church is against today.

If you asked me today, I side with the idea that I cannot ever see the church changing this policy, it's belief, or it's doctrine.

Experience has told me that what I think is not always what happens.

What I find interesting about the thread is how absolute people are with their statements in what the church will do in the future.

It beggars the question then, What IF?

How strongly convinced are they that something WILL NEVER happen?  If they are that convinced it is against the commandments of the Lord...what happens if the church decides to do exactly what they feel will never happen?

It's happened to me (which is really what my examples are about, not to really argue about them).  I made my choice on what to do and where to follow.  I stick with the church and the leaders of the church.

However, with how strongly some are making their statements, IF the church ever decided exactly opposite of what they feel would never happen...what would they choose?

JJ,

I believe many get what you're saying here.  And it is always good to have an open mind.  The reality is that if the Prophet made such a declaration about gay marriage, there would be MANY who could easily do a 180 on it as long as we had a spiritual confirmation that it was ordained of God.

But what JAG was describing is the fact that you're in serious danger of the old comment that you're so open-minded that your brains may fall out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Two cases, one deals directly with the ordinance, so, unfortunately I cannot get more explicit than that.  Just know that the ordinance itself has changed, and some of that change makes the doctrine different.

OK, you still didn't answer the question.  What year are you talking about?

10 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I'm not sure what your point is.  If Gay Marriage was announced as being approved for Temple work over the pulpit via the direction of the Brethren we'd have a similar statement.

Boy are you going the wrong way on this.  Not what I said at all.

You seemed hesitant to talk about priest baptizing in the temple because "it's the temple".  I was merely pointing out that the announcement was said over the pulpit so it is not one of  those things that we can't talk about outside the temple.  So, go ahead and talk about it instead of avoiding the topic while hinting at it (as you usually do about pretty much everything.)

10 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Another way to view it, is that the Aaronic Priesthood is for earthly ordinances.  Those that have effect upon us on the Earth.  Baptism is one that continues after, but is an entry to show our acceptance of the Lord.

The ordinances of the Temple are for those of a HIGHER magnitude.

Another way to view it is that the Aaronic Priesthood can officiate over any temporal ordinance or ordinances that can be done outside of the Temple.  The Melchizedek is required for those that deal specifically with eternal ordinances, or those that deal directly with power and authority from the eternal world. 

I see that logic.  But where is that found in scriptures.  i.e. ALL temple ordinances are for Melchizedek only?

I realize you're older than I, but what I was always taught was that the Aaronic Priesthood was about the more physical ordinances of things with regard to the gospel of repentance and baptism.  So says the scriptures.  That still seems to apply to temple baptisms.

10 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I don't know what the future holds with the Church today.

I do.  We win. They lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

JJ,

I believe many get what you're saying here.  And it is always good to have an open mind.  The reality is that if the Prophet made such a declaration about gay marriage, there would be MANY who could easily do a 180 on it as long as we had a spiritual confirmation that it was ordained of God.

But what JAG was describing is the fact that you're in serious danger of the old comment that you're so open-minded that your brains may fall out.

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

OK, you still didn't answer the question.  What year are you talking about?

Boy are you going the wrong way on this.  Not what I said at all.

You seemed hesitant to talk about priest baptizing in the temple because "it's the temple".  I was merely pointing out that the announcement was said over the pulpit so it is not one of  those things that we can't talk about outside the temple.  So, go ahead and talk about it instead of avoiding the topic while hinting at it (as you usually do about pretty much everything.)

I see that logic.  But where is that found in scriptures.  i.e. ALL temple ordinances are for Melchizedek only?

I realize you're older than I, but what I was always taught was that the Aaronic Priesthood was about the more physical ordinances of things with regard to the gospel of repentance and baptism.  So says the scriptures.  That still seems to apply to temple baptisms.

I do.  We win. They lose.

The first instance was several decades ago.  The other has to do with the NEW Endowment procedure/stuff that was released just a few years ago with those temples that do not have live endowments.  Won't get any more specific than that...sorry.

In answer to the pulpit, and the Priests, I've touched upon it in some detail already, or at least as much as really can be discussed outside the temple.  You are right, the Aaronic Priesthood IS for physical ordinances.  To show how the doctrine used to be, the Temple Ordinances (ALL OF THEM) were for those of spiritual ordinances.  AS Baptism for the Dead is for spirits in the Spirit World, it is NOT a physical ordinance such as Baptism outside the Temple is.  You need a proxy, you cannot actually hold the dead individual and baptize the dead body (though some Anti-Mormons have tried to paint it in that fashion in the past).

All ordinances performed for those in the Spirit world were seen as only being able to be done under someone who had the Highest Priesthood from the Lord, which fell under those who had the Melchizedek Priesthood.  You could be a participant (why Youth could do Baptisms for the Dead) but could not officiate.  These higher ordinances dealing with things beyond this Earth, or the Spirit and Eternal world could only be done under the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood.  This was why men could Only perform Temple ordinances (for themselves or for others) if they were given the Melchizedek Priesthood.  This is one reason why one could NOT get their Endowment until they had the Higher Priesthood.

Obviously, this is NOT what we believe today.  It has not been spelled out exactly what has changed (though I suspect the common interpretation is the same as you have presented and I have presented in the past...that Baptisms for the dead is basically the same ordinance as that for the living, thus falls under the purview of the Priests authority).  It could be as commonly interpreted, or it could be used later to be as a crowbar to pry open even more radical change allowing those men and boys who do not have the Melchizedek priesthood to perform even more ordinances in the Temple.  AS you point out, there is no much to define who can do what in the scriptures, and as such definitely nothing that really states what I said above in regards to the Endowment!  (The Endowment isn't really even discussed much in the Scriptures).

I would hope not, but it's gotten to the point where I do not know where the church is headed with the changes it has been making of late, and thus with that unpredictability have NO idea where it is headed in the future at present.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes 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.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

You are right, the Aaronic Priesthood IS for physical ordinances.  To show how the doctrine used to be, the Temple Ordinances (ALL OF THEM) were for those of spiritual ordinances.

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.

22 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

AS Baptism for the Dead is for spirits in the Spirit World, it is NOT a physical ordinance such as Baptism outside the Temple is.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share