Hypothetical question here as someone who isn't LDS, what would you do if the current LDS church approved so-called same sex unions in the temple? Would you think this branch of the lds church is false and join a different one? Would it mean that the lds faith entirely is false and you would have to find the True Church? Would you join a new lds church if other apostles from the lds hierarchy started a new church claiming the Prophet was a heretic? In full transparency, I'm Catholic through and through, so I have no dog in the fight just curious.
@RLord017 if the "church" took the position to allow gay marriage in the temple and an apostle or more were against that position I would definitely side with the apostles who were against it, first because for such a drastically change to happen, all apostles are suppose to unanimously sustain such action first. Even Paul took this position against Peter when Peter was not living up to the Gospel standard: "11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (Galatians 2:11-14)
@@RLord017 in my opinion the church would break into 2 churches. It would also be important to know whether the church made that change on its own or if it was forced to buy overwhelming pressure and threats.
I don't know if it will happen in the temple but they will be more accepted and hold positions. I feel like Mormons don't do their research and still think its a choice. its not a choice. Mormon we need to get smart. Our leaders are DUMb and behind. Almost Everything our leaders have said has been wrong and debunked. Real revelation was lost with Joe SMith.
I can’t believe that this topic is still something that needs debating. it’s so ridiculously easy to answer when you’re not searching for the answer you so desperately want to hear.
Your leaders were clear that interracial marriage was a sin for 130 years. They're unreliable old bigots. There's more evidence for that than for the Book of Mormon
They have not been clear, the official church pr representatives have openly applauded gay members standing outside the temple bragging about their decision to be married. The prophets can say whatever they want, they also speak through what they tolerate, and the message has been mixed
@@Lomochenkoit won't be allowed by God and that is not a position a prophet can change. As soon as Jesus gave Peter the keys of the Kingdom Peter rebuked him for saying he needed to go to Jerusalem be crucified and rise the 3rd day, this was how it ended: "23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." (Matthew 16:23) In the same light, a prophet cannot undo what has already been declared by God to be an abomination: "22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22)
The purpose for coming to earth is to become like our Heavenly Parents who are in a heterosexual, sealed, eternal marriage. This is why the Church cannot allow same sex sealing or unions. Allowing it would completely contradict the Church's purpose.
God does not make mistakes anyone that is born not in a perfect body (example:everyone) are results of a fallen world. My son is gay. I do not believe that God made him gay. It gets confusing when people start to say God made people gay. God made me a male or female when they were the opposite before coming to earth. JMO @@candyxoxo19
There is no “wrong body” - but our bodies ARE all imperfect and fallen. Could the gender of one’s spirit and gender of one’s body be misaligned? I can see that as doctrinally plausible. That said, I think the vast majority of so-called transgender people are more likely “transTRENDER” but I am not prepared to declare that a spirit-bidy mismatch is beyond possibility. Maybe a few spirits really are put into a mismatched body? Maybe that’s their burden in this life? I have no idea. And neither does anyone else until we get actual revelation in the topic.
God moved the church to spend millions of dollars on the I'm a Mormon campaign. Now he moves the Church to say the use of Mormon is a win for the devil. Given time, the history of mormonism has been that it can come up with anything and reverse course on anything.
Children need a mother and a father, not just 2 parents. You literally cannot make a child without a mother and a father biologically. Children NEED a positive male role model and a positive female role model, without one or the other they struggle in consistent and documented ways. How can a homosexual relationship provide what a straight relationship has naturally? The only way homosexual relationships can have kids at all is through modern medicine (ivf), adoption, or infidelity. 2 men cannot replace the loving care and nurturing power of a mother, 2 women cannot replace the discipline and foundation that a father provides.
I can testify to this! My husband came from a dysfunctional family where there was neglect and abuse by both parents. He has perpetuated that behavior into our marriage. All our children struggle with faith, depression, anxiety, and acceptance. Their father wasn't there for them and was verbally abusive when he was. He sure made it hard to raise our children. I love all our children and they are all working on healing and moving forward in faith. I wish he had kept his promises to God when we were married in the temple. He left three years ago. I finally got up the courage to file for a divorce. A year later I am still struggling to move forward because he has been fighting the divorce because he doesn't want to take responsibility for his actions. I won't bore anyone with all the details. Suffice it to say he broke his covenants and abandoned his family. I just God has a plan for me and our children. I am striving for the eternal family. I am walking a tough road and so are our children, but with God's help healing will come.
😮💨I don't even like using the term "ideal" here as it insinuates a spectrum of approval in sexuality. There is no spectrum. There's approved [by God] and there is nothing outside that. // He created them male and female. Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. A man should cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh. // The adversary is astoundingly adept at confusing such fundamental and simple realities in the minds of men.
Except that there is a spectrum of approval, but it's not our approval, it's God's. Anything less than the ideal (man and a woman in a covenantal union) is disavowed by God. There is only one heavenly permitted sexual order. The others are a spectrum by worldly standards of happiness and heavenly standards of consequence. God would look at gay marriage and rape the same way in a sense; they both violate His plan of sexual order. However, rape is a far worse sexual order in the sense that it violates someone's agency. I have a hard time accepting that God would look at someone who has a gay partner and judge them the same as someone who rapes for sexual gratification. Aside from the ideal, it's a spectrum of consequence for violating God's doctrine.
But in a way, it IS a spectrum. I would say that a civil marriage between a man and a woman is great, but not the ideal if they are not sealed in the temple. And like Jacob said, I think a gay man having lots of promiscuous sex with strangers is worse than two men in a civil union.
@@tasamolic not if children are involved. Unions with children quickly negate whatever supposed benefits to society exist, because of the damage done to the children. You can still be in a committed relationship without being in a civil union.
@@BettyHorn My point still stands regardless. It's not about the reason for rape, it's that I don't believe God would look at a rapist the same as someone who participates in gay marriage. That's what makes it a spectrum.
In 2008, CA Prop 8 was "extreme". It was argued that it opens the door for more crazy & worse extreme, which we were told it would never happen, we're talking crazy...well, we're now in the middle of the crazy that would "never happen".
@@nathanbigler Don't equate not having heard the gospel and having a chance to accept it with what you've done by rejecting it. Your attempt to argue 8 billion people are on your side doesn't hold water. And, in any event, "Strait is the gate and narrow is the way and few there be that find it..."
Progressive Mormons ? ! Who invented that ? The Lord has restored His Church on the earth. When we keep His commandments He will bless us. And when we don't He cannot bless us. We have our God given agency . We may choose. Let us not complicate matters.
Just looking at from a purely anatomical perspective homosexual sex is not only abnormal but physically unhealthy. In men especially it leads to a number of physical ailments such as penile edema, damaged sphincter tissue leading to incontinence, hemorrhoids and anal fissures to name a few. It’s just unnatural. I recommend reading the book Mormons and Homosexuality by A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D. MPH from the Setting the Record Straight series.
As soon as gay marriage became legal in Canada a doctor lost his medical license for basically saying the same thing. The homosexual agenda is anti religion abd anti real science
I cannot BELIEVE there is a book called "queer Mormon". As I've said a million times, when I was growing up, our parents loved us and wouldn't allow us to say that word or even tell us what it meant! Now they push it in SCHOOLS. And one of the reasons I joined the LDS church years ago was because of the morals, and yet this book uses that word in the title?? And people shouldn't know what "transgender" means, either. We never heard of such words growing up.
“Debates” like this make me thankful to have a Prophet and Apostles to lead and teach doctrine Conversations such as this make my head want to explode…sin will never be acceptable in Gods Kingdom- no matter how much twisting of circumstances and words
And it doesn't matter what the sin is. Period. I could be perfect in every way except to steal from someone. I will still be held accountable for that sin, even moreso if I didn't repent while I have the opportunity.
@@jra9380 Brigham Young said it was doctrine that to enter the Celestial Kingdom a man must be a polygamist. That was changed with OD 1. Multiple people said it was doctrine that blacks were inferior and that interracial marital relations would cause the immediate death of the people engaging in that. That has since changed with OD 2. Those are the obvious ones. But let’s look at certain ones that are more subtle. How about the doctrine of Adam God which was taught as doctrine and believed by numerous early church leaders and members. That hasn’t just been changed, but condemned as false doctrine without condemning those who taught it as false prophets. Or the current change to try to make Mormonism sound more like a Christian faith by saying that Jesus is enough to save us rather than just providing a means for us to save ourselves. That might not be a true doctrinal shift since it’s a lie that Jesus is enough in Mormonism still, but it is a change nonetheless.
At the core of Progressive beliefs I find a self-centered worldview, a *consumerist* attitude, an immature insistence that My desires deserve gratification just because. It's predictable in how it takes material prosperity for granted. Appealing to a sense of Progress by hand-waving about imaginary backwardness in the past is sloppy and lazy. Progress Theology (as Mary Harrington puts it) is a dogma that people put their faith into with unquestioning fervor. It wants to be the gospel. It's a spell all right, but it's not the good one.
Progressive and leftist ideologies imho are satanic ideologies and also have some fallacious assumptions at their foundations 1st of all that those who lived in the past, recent or ancient, were or are less intelligent or knowledgeable than we are today. Since Adam's time we as a whole have been digressing in knowledge each generation has forgotten some knowledge that their parents knew and have/are falling to satanic plays trying to convince us we are now the smartest since the beginning of time. That concept is an evolutionary concept and always will be. Adam and Eve were created perfectly, had great knowledge to the point that he, Adam, named every creature kind on this earth. I challenge any person to do the same today. You probably couldn't name every kind because you probably don't even know what a kind is or how to separate the kinds from species. One thing I know there is only one species and kind of human being and they like every other kind on this planet can only reproduce when there is a male and female involved. Reproduction can not happen in any other way and to second guess God and His Christ you will loose. May everyone be able to see and follow God and His Laws and maybe recieve salvation.
I always appreciate good logical arguments, but the most straightforward answer to this is the clear spiritual symbolism teaching us the order: A man an a woman unite in marriage and create a child that is a whole, true, literal embodiment of their union. None of those other “arrangements” can recreate this 100%. Circumstances outside of our control can necessitate adaptation. Intentionally breaking it and calling it good is, quite frankly, the spirit of Cain.
Cannot be changed. Sin is still sin, whether legal in the world or not. God's ways are higher than our ways. Why do people keep thinking they can be activists and force God to change His laws? We're getting pretty arrogant, thinking we know better than God. Useless to debate established truth like this. New topic, please.
Because they are so used to human laws changing when they complain, they think God can be persuaded to change His laws. To a certain degree I think the church leadership confuses them when they talk about being compassionate to the sinner, without affirming the sin. People think that their identity is their sin, and so to be compassionate to a sinner must mean permissive to the sin.
Jacob, with truth on your side, and your ability to articulate and hit central concepts, he had nothing to argue. Thanks for going on the apologetic offensive. Most of us out here are tired of the loud voices, falsehoods and lies coming from people that want to justify sin. Keep up the great work.
A misunderstanding of “line upon line” and “ongoing revelation” and “the ongoing restoration” that approaches these ideas without any limiting principle is the same thing as no eternal truth, nothing that is outside the realm of what could be “left behind” as old ideas of previous generations that “were people of their time”. This is functionally the same thing as no truth and no God.
I am truly impressed at how calmly you tackle these debates with doctrine, with logic and with love. I would have lost my mind hearing not only his incongruent arguments but even listening to that tripe about transgenderism.
@@aaronbullen9120 that's a good argument though. Brigham Young said that black people would never hold priesthood or enter the temple. He said interracial marriage was a sin because of a curse. Leaders called this the doctrine of the church until 1978. Anything can change in the church. When Russell Nelson dies, you will probably be allowed to say Mormon again
Joseph said in his 1836 letter to Oliver Cowdery, that the Priesthood curse was real AND that it one day would be taken away. No such declaration was ever made for gay marriage. It is and always will be false doctrine.
@@nathanbiglerYou can choose to say Mormon now if you want. You have your agency to do so. The name of the church has always been The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from the time of Joseph Smith Jr. We as members should know that.
If you believe marriage can be anything but the union of male and female, you do not understand the purpose or deeper meaning of marriage. It is more than a legal union. It is actually tied to exaltation. That means that it matters. If you don't understand that, you need to look deeper into the scriptures with an open heart. You can't just go looking for the answers you want. You are denying the very fabric of creation and reality itself if you can't understand the importance of the union of the masculine and the feminine. You're no longer with one foot in Babylon, you're just part of Babylon.
Is there a defined doctrine in Mormonism that not only delineates simply the celestial order of marriage as you’ve espoused, but the terrestrial, telestial , or outer darkness orders of non-celestial marriage relationships? The typical understanding is that they are single, however, that doesn’t preclude people from declaring themselves and organizing themselves in same-sex coupleship or any other combination of relationship-even if bodily changes or limitations were forcibly enforced-much like if a government wouldn’t allow those relationships here.
@@hardwork8395 I'll tell you up front that I'm not interested in proving anything to you, but if you are curious you can explore this answer: there is no marriage in the other kingdoms. You go back to being with your brothers and sisters, and your desire to align your will with God's no longer gets diluted by temptations as the devil will be bound. In outer darkness, you will not have a body either.
@@taylorsessions4143 that was my understanding from taking the LDS. None of that precludes, of course, anything of the sort that you might see on earth in any government that denies those relations or marriages.
Marriage is more than just a union in our beliefs. When a man and a woman are sealed in the temple under proper authority, they become bound together in life and the eternities. They are one in the same way Adam and Eve were one. God took from Adam to create Eve. They were not complete without the other. We cannot fulfill our full divine purpose in God's plan alone. It is deeper than just two people who love each other and want to make it official. @@hardwork8395
@taylorsessions4143 those who live in mortality and become sons of perdition will be resurrected (have their body) but will not be saved in a kingdom of glory.
There are so many people who use their own understanding and project it upon God and his revealed Doctrine. This man is arguing for something that is against the order of God's plan.
Great points brought up on this video. But I agree with some other commenters that you needed to allow your guest more time to express their views. They couldn’t get a word in edgewise.
Wow. That conversation was wild. I have a friend who struggles with same sex attraction but points out that he is not gay because he chooses to not follow that path. He said one of the reasons homosexuality is sinful is because it is inherently selfish. A man and a woman uniting requires selflessness.
I don’t follow his logic, that somehow someone and their partner’s gender-not actions or thoughts themselves-could possibly make a relationship selfish.
@@hardwork8395 the friendship that accompanies the relationship may very well not be selfish, but the homosexuality is selfish. A man already knows what another man wants, a woman already knows what another woman wants. A man has to learn how to serve the woman, and the woman the man in ways that require them to set aside the self for the sake of the other. M-m and f-f relations don’t have that built in. Yes, m-f relations can be, and often are, selfish, but now we’ve just circled back around to Jacob’s point about the ideal.
@@i2rtw I can take that philosophical point, though I don’t agree. My response is that all relationships require sacrifice, and you are only talking unidimensionally, here, and then characterizing the entirety of each relationship by that. Take a non-sexual roommate of the same sex, living in the same space. There’s still compromise of varying degrees that may take place due to the shared space; levels of non-sexual intimacy make a difference here, e.g., if you lived with a sibling or a grandparent, you would also have to work at that relationship or compromise in many of the same ways you do for heterosexual ones, though you add and subtract certain dimensions from each. Due to the differing levels of intimacy in various possible relationships with people of all stripes, I don’t think it follows that you can characterize an entire relationship as selfish simply because people understand certain needs of certain types of people better than others-one still needs to act on those financially, emotionally, legally, spiritually, etc.
@@i2rtw please do correct me then. I’ll just take your follow-up clarification in consideration, and we can end it there, as I was merely trying to gain understanding of that seeming strange initial selfish comment. Thank you for your future clarification and for engaging to help me understand!
The priesthood ban was, as far as I can tell, is failure of men. There was no precedent in scripture that would suggest a man would be denied priesthood because of his race, it had no doctrinal base. The lifting of the ban was a reversion to the way things were under Joseph Smith and the prophets and preceded him-the way God wants it to be. Much in the same way, same sex marriage has no precedent and has never been established by God. It has never been condoned. So, to allow same sex marriage would be to implement that which is contrary to God and the messages shared by His prophets throughout time.
I agree, except that only the Levites could hold the priesthood in the OT and nobody from any other lineage could. (Not saying this to justify the priesthood ban in our dispensation, but to illustrate that even a priesthood restriction has some sort of history, and there is no such thing with homosexuality).
That’s a good point. The Levites did cross my mind, but I hadn’t looked at it in the same way since the restrictions on the children of Israel were not related to their ethnicity.
The priesthood restriction wasn't a failure of men and Jacob's (who is usually solid on the gospel) lack of understanding on that issue doesn't help. Like plural marriage and the temple endowment, the restriction began with Joseph and continued with Brigham. Joseph was the architect, Brigham the builder, so to speak.
The restriction was instituted by Bigham, not Joseph., And I say it was a failure of men because I do not believe a racial ban has any prophetic precedent and is therefore not from God. Men make mistakes and so in this sense the “failure” I am referring to is one of NOT following the prophetic precedent that would have ultimately come from God and been witnessed to by the collective of many prophets up to and including Jospeh Smith.
@e.g.stokes2348 It originated with Joseph. And other Church leaders, including Brigham Young, John Taylor, George Q. Cannon, Franklin D. Richards, and Joseph F. Smith all stated so. Abraham Smoot and Zebedee Coltrin also attested that at one point, Joseph instructed them not to ordain black men, though they could be baptized (including slaves with their master's consent). After ordaining Elijah Abel, Joseph's approach to this issue changed with his translation of the Book of Abraham. The oft-repeated claim that several black men were ordained is misleading. Other than Abel, who came early on during the translation, there were only two others - Joseph T. Ball (who was considered white according to census records) and Q. Walker Lewis, who was ordained by William Smith in Massachusetts. In retrospect, this was at a time when William was doing a lot of things not in keeping with the Church (he was eventually excommunicated) and William Appleby (president of the eastern states mission) wrote that the ordination had been done contrary to the order of the Church. To be fair, another oft-repeated statement by Brigham (after Joseph's death) was him recognizing Lewis as one of the "best elders they had." But this can't be taken in isolation apart from the evidence as a whole, as many seem to want to do. Much like plural marriage, or the temple ordinances for that matter, the priesthood restriction wasn't always conducted correctly or consistently. Some of Elijah Abel's descendants were actually ordained. The doctrinal basis for the restriction goes back to the translation of the Book of Abraham, and specifically the curse (not the mark, which was actually a protection for him) on Cain and his descendants in regards to officiating in the priesthood; and when that would change in regards to his brother Abel's posterity (through Seth). From at least the scriptures, it was believed the descendants of Cain, Ham's wife, Cannan, etc. were black. And the policy was to restrict all black males, since it was impossible to know who may or may not be a descendant of Cain based on black skin alone. By far, this was the original and most oft-stated reason for the restriction by those who lived at the time of Joseph and immediately afterward. Other theories and opinions put forth later only served to confuse and cloud the issue. As has the revisionist history by Paul Reeves and others at present day. While racism certainly played a factor, to chalk up the restriction to that alone is the lazy and ignorant approach by those who only feel comfortable looking at it through the lens of presentism. As with plural marriage, the attempt to lay it at the feet of Brigham is simply wrong. These things began with Joseph, and were built on by Brigham and other prophetic successors. And those who still want to attribute the restriction to the mistakes of men need to explain why the Lord waited over 125 years and 10 prophets to lift the restriction, including during the administrations of David O. McKay and Harold B. Lee, both of whom repeatedly prayed about the restriction being lifted. To understand all this better, a good video to check out is Cain, Abel and the Priesthood by Bruce Porter here on RU-vid.
Jacob, thank you for another great video. You articulate the position of the church so well, and I love the focus on the ideal sexual order. This focus seems to allow everything else to fall into place and not be arbitrary and relative. Thanks again! 🎉
Disappointed because I thought he would come up with a coherent argument in favor of progressive sexual ethics. Instead he just dodged the teleology question.
@@michaelnicholas5587I will share one argument with you, not to justify the behavior because I personally don't belive in it, but this is worth sharing. My eldest son had a gay female roommate who explained to him why she prefers women. Growing up her father pimped her out to his drug addicted male friends and this started when she was a child until her early teens when she was able to escape. Because of her abuse she can not trust men in any kind of romantic relationship. I feel so terrible for her that she went through this horrible circumstance. My understanding is that many women become gay because of sexual trauma caused by men. I'm not saying I endorse the behavior but it certainly helps me understand that not all same sex relationships are caused by a blatant and open rebellion against God's laws Plus we need to remember that there are many people in the world who know nothing about God and Jesus Christ.
Of the 24 minutes I think he only spoke 2 minutes. I would have been interested in hearing his thought process out at least all though I had a sense of the where it was going
Another example of someone choosing to make their own interpretation rather than taking the whole scriptures and prophets and apposite words to interpret.
"I believe the scriptures"...nah. Read Jude to see the tactic being deployed and what the Lord thinks about it. This is "turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness" and it should be called out for what it is.
Why do we as Heterosexual get sealed in the Temple? So we can have a continuation of seed and rejoice in our posterity. If you are gay you cannot create life and therefore deny yourself that blessing. So if we are to become Gods eventually how are you going to populate worlds? Has God made a mistake by putting a female spirit in a male body? A bit silly seeing that He's all knowing and perfect. A man or a woman on there own is incomplete as we have different skills sets, when we unite we are complete together having both feminine and masculine.
They most certainly can create life. All they have to do is find a women to create a child with and the she gives the baby to the married gay couple. It’s not that complex.
This guys is wrong, but Jacob, you’ve got to let him complete his responses. I’m interested in how he can possibly explain his point of view. But he he only gets one, maybe two phrases out before he is interrupted.
@ThoughtfulFaith I agree with you that the ideal does not include in any way gay unions. But, from a spectator standpoint, it is really quite annoying that you don’t let the other party speak. I see you asking all these questions without letting him answer them.
He never did get that you were trying to get him to articulate what standard he was going by, it seemed. I’m impressed with your conversations! You do a lot of good
I enjoy your content. But you didn't let that guy get any of his thoughts out. And that's frustrating in my experience. Bad ideas die when you let them be expressed
Jacob gave him plenty of time. He rambled and babbled because he has no legitimate argument and his spirit knows it. He tried to deflect off of the words of prophets to justify how he feels rather than what is true. Truth cuts to the very center (1 Ne. 16:2).
This fellow assuming the crux of the issue is a sexual ethic has failed to understand the core posture. The position on marriage is a metaphysical posture: the joining of male and female eternally.
I find it troubling that he thinks that somehow we have progressed beyond what God taught Adam and Eve. What makes him think that modern society is so much more advanced and higher in status than prior dispensations? I also question how people use the Priesthood Declaration of 1978 or the Polygamy Declaration of 1890. These situations are different in every sense.
There are different senses of the word progressed. Here, he was arguing that line upon line could be a justificatory way to argue that this, too, is one more thing where LDS understanding could be revealed, or improved upon.
I should be able to get sealed to my dog in the temple. At some point we have to stop entertaining these nasty ideas and just say NO. The temple sealing isn't anything other than a man and a woman, and even then the blessing is dependent on your obedience to God's laws and honoring that covenant. I love my gay friends and family. Love doesn't mean i sacrifice God's law for them. I love my family and friends who are straight and break the law of chastity. You won't catch me justifying their behavior either.
But just because you get sealed to someone doesn’t mean you have sex with them. Children are sealed to their parents. It would be nice to have your pets sealed to you as well.
To Jacob Hansen, Your argument is flawed due to (1) taking the logic approach rather than the authoritative approach, which is problematic because laws, not logic, give cause and effect (2) assuming happiness can be had by all other beings without adherence to divine law, especially when you say gay unions "bring great levels of happiness" clashes with prophetic counsel that wickedness is juxtaposed to happiness and (3) to assume that happiness can be had outside of God is itself a secular construct, even if supported by members our faith or other faiths. It may be an ideal of the Enlightenment, but it's still false, or to quote J.G. Hamann, "Man has neither a physical nor a moral capacity for any other happiness which is given to him ... [and] to attain a happiness that is not given and bestowed amount to a great affront to nature and a willful injustice" (Samtliche Werke, Vol. III)
What you're saying reminds me of the time right before the Nephites were utterly destroyed. They cried out in pain, not because they were sorry for what they had done, but because the Lord would not allow them to remain happy in their sin. Wickedness never was happiness and Jacob allowing for the idea that gay unions create happiness is misplaced optimism.
Interested in the full discussion. Felt like he was dodging some of your questions but hard to see due to how it was edited. But he mentioned slippery slope-on these issues the slope really is quite slippery, so that “fallacy” is no longer such.
D&C 42 22 Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else. This has always been God's plan and order of things. It's too bad the church went through such a hard history to find that out. I hope we don't have to repeat those lessons.
The older I get the more i pray just that I can align the will of my flesh to the will of my spirit and the will of my spirit to God. I don’t ask to change God or his doctrine to give me what I want with my limited understanding.
Mr. Hansen, I really like you and your work. But if you release a video that is almost entirely you talking to someone else, you have to put the other person’s name somewhere. In the episode description. In text in the video itself. Preferably both. But something, somewhere, that explains who you’re talking to. Without any sort of context as to who you’re arguing with, this video is very confusing.
Here is the bottom line for both progressive members and orthodox members: Progressive members will never get the change they want, not because the church doesn't change for them, but because as soon as progressive members get what they want, they instantly want more and more, so they are never going to be satisfied. Attempting to accommodate progressive members is a fools errand and will not retain progressive members anyway. Orthodox members are learning more and more that the "doctrines" are in fact up for change based on who is the highest bidder (meaning, if the leadership think they are losing enough members/tithing over a particular doctrine, they will phase it out as slowly as they can without drawing attention to the fact that they are no longer teaching the unpopular doctrine). The more the leadership sells out their core doctrines in the hopes of widening their membership tent, the more they disillusion their core orthodox members (me up until a few years ago). Once the leadership notices they are losing a significant amount of their core members due to selling out their doctrines, they will attempt to reign in the progressive changes but it will be too late. pandora's box has already been opened and the orthodox members already know they are sellouts who don't hold the doctrine sacred. I am the orthodox member described above who has already decided the church leadership are a bunch of sellouts.
I don't see what is wrong with fulfilling a sexual role in this world that may be difficult for you when selflessness is necessary in this world to have lasting happiness in worlds to come. It's progressive. The question I have is; do sexual capabilities, possibilities and resources increase inside the worlds to come? Like what do we have to look forward to and experience throughout the eternities? AND if anything more, what changes can we make now to increase our sexuality in this life without spoiling future blessings?
The Proclamation on the Family is a modern concept which leaves behind the laws of polygamy and the extended family. That is understandable as an adjustment to modern law and nuclear-family culture in the 20th century. Left out of the discussion, however, is the pluralistic nature of American democracy. No church needs to adopt any particular feature of another church or pressure group, but pluralism requires at least a modicum of respect for other points of view, and especially legally-agreed-upon in a democracy. Same sex marriage, for example, does not need to be adopted by any particular group, but should be respected and not persecuted. Mutual tolerance is called for. Woke progressives often reject mutual toleration.
Our biology is fundamentally male-female, as are the biology of all plants and animals. Did God design our biology or didn't He? If he didn't, then why do we worship Him? If He did, then why did he create us as "male and female"? I don't see how homosexuality is necessary or part of the plan. I acknowledge that feelings are strong in this arena... but why should that dictate these apparent and fundamental truths? I guess another question to ask is, does God really "make" someone gay? That's an honest question, and, I believe, the crux of this discussion - because we know he created us with a sexual binary.
Just want to echo some of the sentiments here. While I agree with your stance on this Jacob, not letting him answer and interrupting him was off-putting. You KNOW his answers are going to be bad, so let him dig his own grave.
Jacob, I agree with so much of what you believe and talk about, but I have to admit, I can’t stand the way you converse. You are constantly talking over your guests, interrupting them, asking them questions and not letting them answer… You’re a terrible interviewer. For the love of all that’s good and holy, LET YOUR GUESTS TALK!!! Let them finish their sentence!!! Let them get their thought out!!!!!! Ask your questions and then listen to the answers!!!! Listen to understand what they’re saying, not for your turn to speak!!!!!! Ugh…. K, back to appreciating you.
He changed out giving the higher law for the lower law (Mosaic) because Israel was hard-headed and sinful. That fact alone completely eviscerates the possibility anyone can ever claim god would never, or could never, issue alternative, inferior moral systems or laws based off people’s bad reactions to his perfect laws or ideals. You have more modern day examples of unrighteousness causing higher laws or principles to be replaced by inferior ones due to sin: take the LDS Law of Consecration. So contrary to Jacob’s and most LDS understanding of this issue, this has MASSIVE historical precedent.
Listen to John Larsen Mormon expressions why the LDS church will never accept temple marriage. He's anti Mormon but explains it better than anyone else I've heard
I was really confused as well...but I think it looks that way because of how it is edited. It is not super clear where the cuts are. It seems that the purpose of this highlight reel is more to put Jacob's points together in a more succinct video. But it makes it look like a interview where Jacob just keeps interrupting and jumping all over. I hope the full discussion comes off a little better.
@@batboy12394 Yeah, I was always under the impression such edits are deemed a revocable interview and take. It seems Jacob mostly wanted a personal propaganda video with a punching bag as a prop. I fail to understand why he got into "that's what XYZ would say" when he's got a live human being that could speak for themselves on the matter. I don't know how these interviews are coordinated but usually edits have to be approved. I would revoke the release if I was the other party. It seems Jacob further infers to allude the other party has a view that Jacob edited in. I don't know how such bad faith actors scale this far.
@@RLDRemembrance I wouldn't go as far as to say it was bad faith. He clearly says in the title that the full video is in the description. I just wish the edits were more clearly delineated. You can call it propaganda, but it's essentially a trailer for the full video
I don't understand why we are even having these conversations. Sin means to miss the mark, in this case to miss the correct orifice. Lustful desires of any kind require repentance. I have lustful desires. I do not ask God or my community to make exception for my sins. Why do we make exception for homosexual desire? God is no respecter of person. We are all sinners and must be reconciled by Christ. Sometimes the answer is "no". Let's relearn how to say no.
Blair Ostler is really stretching what Christ stated in the Proclamation on the Family. I think there are many members who see the church and just another church or like every other church. I sometimes think that some members need to have everything spelled out down to the most minute detail, so they don't run with their own ideas. We are in a time where many will not stay because they want the church to change. I find it troubling that a small group of members would think that God needs to change his doctrine for them without considering the consequences to salvation and exaltation. If God can forward and told us that gay marriage was now going to be accepted as gospel doctrine the church would collapse from within. There are already so many members having a faith crisis these days. This time of change would be catastrophic for a worldwide church.
In order for this dude to argue against it, he HAS to say that he thinks the Prophets and Apostles are wrong. And, if he says that, then what is he still doing in the Church? These "Prog-Mos" are so weird. Why do they stay in a Church that they think is broken?
He is asking questions and not allowing the person he is asking to answer. This was hard to watch. He seems to just be putting his point but not listen to the other guys point of few
I agree with you thoughtful faith but let the man talk! You talked over him the whole time and I never even understood what his position was. Is there a longer video somewhere?
Is this discussion helpful? We are not called upon to prophesy about the future of the church. We can only obey God’s laws as we have them today. The Nephites tried to start living the new law after the sign of Christ’s birth, but the timing was wrong. Some have fallen away trying to live the law of consecration in advance of its full establishment. Just follow modern revelation. Don’t worry about the future. Focus on the gospel here and now. This is an issue facing a growing number of members and guidance should continue to be prayerfully sought after by the brethren. We need the best answers to address the questions and concerns of those individuals to keep them close to Christ.
What I am getting from this guest is that morality is relative. I can behave the way I want to because a person's understanding of ethics or standards may change and agree with me in the future. That is a really twisted form of rationalizing something.
Given that god has 1) downgraded moral laws when people have been hard-hearted or wicked, take the law of Moses, for example; and, 2) due to god also allowing different groups of people (including within the LDS church) to have differing standards and moral laws and covenants applicable to them, but NOT to others (above the age of accountability and in good mental standing), e.g. those who make temple covenants and those who have not yet done so… it is perfectly feasible that god could allow for differing moral standards in other categories, or even downgrade moral law here-or other places- (for wickedness or hard-heartedness) as he has in the past.
The truth will never change. Ever. Doctrine? At least our mortal understanding of it…yeah, our understanding of doctrine can and has changed. Including from prophets. Truth is truth, doctrine is our understanding of it. The claims in the past about the priesthood ban being doctrinal, for example. It is entirely possible that the church could become disconnected from the truth, while still claiming to have correct doctrine. This is not unprecedented at all in the history of God’s dealings with us. I can see the church allowing gay marriage in the temple one day. Do I see God approving of it? Absolutely not. But His people have screwed up PLENTY in the past. I’m striving to keep my covenants, even if the rest of the church stops keeping theirs.
I have a question: Why do two men having sex need to use protection? We know that unwanted pregnancy is not an issue. Disease is the problem. If two men are in a committed relationship and they are the only partners they have for their entire lives, they would still need to use protection to avoid disease. Why is that? Now one could say, but heterosexual get sexually transmitted diseases too. However, that happens primarily among promiscuous individuals, which is also against the word of God. I have not heard of anyone who only had sex with the heterosexual person they married, who never had a disease prior, becoming infected through sex as deemed virtuous by God.
@@hardwork8395 HIV, AIDS, and any of the others. If not, then why do they need protection? I know I don't with my wife, as neither one of us has a disease and we only have relations with each other.
@@michaelnicholas5587 those are transmitted diseases, from another infected individual-they don’t spawn out of the ether. If they had no other partners but one another, they would have similar risks to other communicable things like yeast infections, etc that heterosexual people also communicate. The current stereotypical pedantic medical advice is for ALL people-even heterosexual monogamous couples-to use protection, btw. Healthcare providers are technically supposed to recommend that as a matter of policy to all, because people cheat, insurance providers, politics, previous past relations someone may have had that could bring infections unknowingly into relationships, etc. I’m only saying the last few sentences as a corrective to your misunderstanding of homosexuals being targeted for medical advice on protection-it’s uninformed. Now, we can both agree that abstinence is a statistically significant factor in possible prevention-though it isn’t a panacea in all cases, as people can get STIs in various ways.
Gender is an essential characteristics, but the question that we don't yet have an answer to is who determines your gender? Do spirits make that choice and ig so can they change their minds? Does chance determine it? Does God determine it and this fallen world messes with that (like people with AIS)? The answer to this question would be significant and clear up some things.
Jacob. Just let the man talk. Stop cutting him off. Allow him to finish a thought. I'm trying to understand what he's saying but you don't let him finish.
Sidenote, these comments need to learn to use proper names because you can't go into the comments and say, "i don't agree with his point." Like dawg, they're both dudes. I have no idea who you're talking about.
