In this particular instance, I don't see that they are breaking God's law.
LDS believe that the majority of temple work will be done in the millennium anyways, so what harm is there to postpone a few Jews if the Jewish community requests it?
Also, if I may put on my apologist hat, who's to say that TSM didn't go to the Lord in humble prayer and was commanded to not pick this battle?
LDS Doctrinal Irony - SSM vs Proxy Baptism
-
_Scottie
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4166
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:54 pm
Re: LDS Doctrinal Irony - SSM vs Proxy Baptism
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
-
_Rollo Tomasi
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4085
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm
Re: LDS Doctrinal Irony - SSM vs Proxy Baptism
Jason Bourne wrote:The Church caved on Abortion?
Some right-wingers think so, because the Church allows for abortion in cases of rape and incest, in addition to the life of the mother (while many right-wingers only allow an exception for life of the mother).
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
-
_Danna
Re: LDS Doctrinal Irony - SSM vs Proxy Baptism
Jason Bourne wrote:The Church caved on Abortion?
A quite sloooow cave in, but relaxation never-the-less (this from Elder Nelson in the October Ensign):
Early in his presidency President Spencer W. Kimball (1895–1985) said: “We have repeatedly affirmed the position of the Church in unalterably opposing all abortions, except in two rare instances: When conception is the result of forcible rape and when competent medical counsel indicates that a mother’s health would otherwise be seriously jeopardized.” Current policy now includes two other exceptions—incest and if the baby cannot survive beyond birth, as determined by competent medical counsel. Even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. It “should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer.”
And abortion (of any sort) is not considered murder for disciplinary reasons in the CHI.
This policy really bugs me as it is an arbitrary, inconsistent, nonsense.
-
_Danna
Re: LDS Doctrinal Irony - SSM vs Proxy Baptism
Back to the OP though, is depriving non-members of their rights, or perhaps, tolerating SSM, doctrinal?
Or is the anti-gay stance a principle?
Or just a policy (like abortion, racism etc).
Off the top of my head, the only canonised source that condemns homosexuality is the Old Testament which condemns literally hundreds of other non-sins as well. Is the Old Testament or New Testament a sole source of any doctrine?
Or is the anti-gay stance a principle?
Or just a policy (like abortion, racism etc).
Off the top of my head, the only canonised source that condemns homosexuality is the Old Testament which condemns literally hundreds of other non-sins as well. Is the Old Testament or New Testament a sole source of any doctrine?
-
_harmony
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 18195
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am
Re: LDS Doctrinal Irony - SSM vs Proxy Baptism
Jason Bourne wrote:The Church caved on Abortion?
My SP thinks so. He's a firm advocate for no abortion, period.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.