I always preface my comments with "I am not LDS, but", and this is to say I have always been impressed with Blake Ostler since I first came across him on a You Tube video about theodicy, the problem of evil (discussing B H Roberts' views). He is indeed scholarly and a thoughtful philosopher. So, I shall enjoy listening to this.
@@lrsvalentine \\GEE THANKS. Given that you know less than nothing about me. Or my political leanings, that was a very brave comment to make - although totally misguided.
It is so eerie when Dan makes these statements and conclusions knowing how the actual understanding coming from Paul is. These academics leading their speculative or conclusive ideas against our modern secular environment is just sad and obvious.
The only way to understand scripture is to know the doctrine and have the Spirit of God in us by keeping His commandments. We wrest the scriptures at our peril.
Jacob, do you plan to have Dan on to debate Blake Ostler? That would be helpful. I was excited for this video when I saw the thumbnail, but quickly became disappointed when I realized it was mostly a conversation about Dan's position without Dan present.
Dan will never come on because he knows his feet will be held to the fire. It's much easier for him to pass himself off as an expert to the gullible TikTok generation who don't know any better.
@@oceancoast92657 When you say to ignore Paul’s writings , You say YOU know God better than Paul . Perhaps God has appeared to Dan like he did to Paul ?
@@tomasina10 I don't recall he said 'Ignore Paul's writings' can you point that out? I do recall him framing that the Context of Pauls' writing is not the same today. And thus the context of what Paul was saying may not apply today, from a strictly Biblical textual point of view. And the Bible is full of such things. Some more obvious than others. And who knows, maybe God did appear to Dan, and he has chosen to keep it private. We have very little information on God appearing to Paul.. just some conflicting accounts in Acts and how long that was kept private before being recorded in Acts is anyone's guess,. Joseph Smith kept his vision private for quite some time. And given we are each entitled to personal revelation, God may have appeared to Dan for Dan's personal revelations, meant only for Dan and not for anyone else.
Wow! This is a super deep dive. Thanks so much! I am old enough to remember the days when the public debate was around whether homosexuality was nature or nurture ie people were trying to prove it was in the DNA etc. This debate was resolved in the public realm by the forced assertion that it dosen't matter because homosexual behavior can't be controlled anyway. I adamantly disagree. I maintain that the recent data proves that there is a huge socialization component in the spread of homosexual and related behavior. I say run away from those that say that we, the mere mortals, can decide what behavior is moral and what is not. It is pure hubris to think that reinterpreting the scriptures to mean that homosexuality is acceptable like Dan is and it should be dealt with the strongest condemnation for the evil that it is.
For people like Dan, remember that they start from the conclusion and work backwards to try and justify it. “We don’t want to be virtuous and we want to sin, so we will assert a position that does not allow us to live virtuously nor say no to sin”
@@DallasCrane The BIble is right. The church is wrong. Young said God revealed to him that Adam was God. Young denied the priesthood to blacks. Lester Bush's paper showed he was wrong.
Great video except for the new definition of "strawman" which is extremely different than the older one. The older one makes sense too. Imagine 2 people on a debate stage. Person A walks to a straw man (scarecrow) next to Person B. Person A then beats the strawman without touching Person B. The strawman is in pieces all over the place. Person A claims victory in the contest. Person A beat a "strawman". It "strawman" argument doesn't touch the actual beliefs, claims, or arguments of another person. It is a "Strawman Fallacy" to attack something other than your opponent (since the story is a metaphor, your opponent's actual beliefs, claims, and arguments).
it's because Dan doesn't always align with the churches position! Jacob said in a previous video that he would like Dan to stay in his lane which Dan isn't going to do! 😆
@@scottvance74 Dan has an agenda of the minimalists scholarship of whom is all you get on Myth. Visions channel. He attacks historical Christianity as well and the low hanging fruit of ignorant fundamentalist ( Mormon as well as Christian ) his laughable videos are easily countered by other Christian Scholars with PhD's . Dr.Michael S.Heiser for 1 as his videos continue to debunk the type of scholarship that Dan has along with his Mentor's book of YHWH having a literal physical body with a Gigantic dick that appears in the Temple in Isaiah 6:1 from her ignorant interpretation of the Hebrew. Maybe Dan as a Mormon? Likes this interpretation and maybe you would agree too but it's as Fringe as you can get in the Scholarship field.
Irrespective of where one ultimately lands on this hotly-debated topic, I'm quite surprised by the careful attention that both sides are giving to the Biblical writ. Why? Because Latter-day Saints are only obliged to offer the Bible authority as far as its correctly translated/transmitted. And, to my knowledge, top leadership has never weighed in on what is, or is not, correct on this topic and a plethora of others.
LDS only pretend they believe in the Bible: only the parts that they think agree with their doctrines. 1 man married to 1 woman is not something practiced in Mormon history by JS & BY before their gods changed their mind and gave a new Revelation.
How did you determine that the Bible has anything to do with god? Are there good reasons to believe we should follow a strictly biblically-based moral framework?
Step 1 - humble yourself and read it sincerely Step 2- be willing to change and repent Step 3- Ask God with sincere and real intent to not only know truth but to live according to truth He gives you Step 4- wait for the answer Fakers don’t get the answers. Only the true in heart have the mysteries of heaven unlocked for them.
@@zionmama150 Is this the method you used to determine that the Bible has something to do with god or how you determined that you should follow a strictly biblically-based moral framework?
Dan: Paul believed the second coming was imminent, so there was no need for children. Jacob @18:15 : If God wanted us to be celibate that would lead to the end of humanity! Well, yeah, Paul thought humanity was ending, and was teaching sexual ethics for end times. That's kind of the Dan's point.
Let's just be honest. Anyone using TH-cam as a debate platform is always going up against and using a strawman argument because the real argument/defense is censored here. I really just see you guys as silly, honestly. In every touchy topic you tip toe around the issue. Your conversations are always pseudo-reality.
@@joshua.snyder us constitution and church principles are two different things. LGBTQ deserve there rights but there rights dont get to overthrow the church and what we believe. The woke professor's has a mouth but that doesnt mean hes right.
Love to see the faithful rejection of Dan, he hides behind an unstated faithful position and then proseletyzes a false and inaccurate interpretation that just so happens to coincide with a worldly view and a God that rejoices in sin
When the church continues to NOT change position and reiterate what the Bible, Book of Mormon and modern prophets teach on this subject what will you feel and think ? Those that got “personal authority “ to have sex will double down or repent. Hence. The reason the second coming is called the “great and dreadful day of the Lord” For some it will be great for others dreadful.
@@craigcline5717 The Book of Mormon does not tell us we cannot abuse kids, have sex with animals…. So your argument is lame. But you may be so obsessed with sex you keep searching for any place you can misinterpret to condone some sexual deviancy.
@@todjohnman7347 don't create a distraction. You claimed that the Book of Mormon teaches about this subject. What does it teach? You can't cite anything because the Book of Mormon is silent on this issue.
@@craigcline5717 sexual sin is a consistent theme. Does the BoM tell you to not have anal sex with other men specifically. NO, but the summary of scripted and prophets do. Science even tells us this with the much higher rate of infections and complications that come from sodomy. Maybe get off the porn and you can clear your mind and spirit to what are gods commandments Craig.
2 questions for the creators. When you reference leviticus they talk about the verses that mention punishments. I would hope that regardless of where people fall on this topic, that everyone can agree killing people who engage in same sex intercourse is messed up and insane. My question though is why do people hold to this law of not practicing in leviticus but dont then hold to the rest that refers to this? I know people say well Jesus fulfilled the old law, but then why hold to Pauls teaching that your saying references the old law? (I hope its clear im not advocating Christians do that, im saying it doesnt make sense to get to pick and choose.) 2nd question, for this subject, I see that all creators get very specific in looking at all the words and their exact meaning in the verses. This definitely makes sense to me if youre going to make sure we know what the verses mean. But in following this, wouldnt we come to the conclusion that these teaching are only about male homosexual activities? Wouldn't it therefore not condemn female homosexual relarionships? I guess both questions come from it appearing that in the end everyone picks and chooses what they want the verses to emphasize. Im no biblical scholar though. Just observations.
Romans 1:27 deals specifically with female same-sex relations. Paul expands Leviticus to include females because he is reading the verse in light of Genesis 1:26 and because by his time the probations in Leviticus had been expanded to females. That should answer your second question.
The answer to your first question is: We did not argue for applying Leviticus but rather the interpretation of Leviticus given by Paul. Paul is not strictly simply adopting the prohibitions in Leviticus - he’s expanding those prohibitions in light of God‘s purposes for creation in the Genesis creation narrative.
@@blakeostler8965 do you have sources for your claim that by Paul's time the prohibitions in Leviticus had expanded to include females? If so, please share those sources.
Gnuse on Gagon. "Oh yeah, I am familiar with Gagnon's work, and I have responded to it in my writings. He finds condemnation of homosexuality in passages where he assumes that the passage is speaking about homosexuality in the first place, when often it isn't. He also uses the Bauer Arndt Gingrich Danker lexicon selectively. Danker was one of my NT profs in seminary. Danker would fuss if he saw how his dictionary (he was the last editor) was being used. (Arndt also taught at my sem, but before I got there.) There are other entries for malakoi and arsenokoitoi in the BAGD not used in that article. My quick list of meanings in my last email comes from the much bigger Liddell and Scott as well as the BAGD.Robert Gnuse"
Gnuse argued that Paul is addressing an Isis cult in Romans 1. He has been followed by very few biblical scholars in his interpretations of these texts. Even Dan McClellan rejects his views. Probably not your best source to take on Gagnon's very thorough work.
Question, why does Blake choose to use the NIV for his discussion.. It's a EVANGELICAL Biased translation, and carries forth many of the known errors and biases that many complain with regards to the KJV. The LDS standard is KJV, but it comes with flaws. He is obviously using the Bible Gateway site, so if you're going deviate from the Church sanctioned KJV, why not use NRSVUE? It's a much more accurate and scholarly accepted translation.
The NIV was just a handy text to address that was consciously aware of the issues regarding translation re: homosexuality. If you can point out where you think that the NIV biases the discussion that would be easier to address you broadside assertions here (that I really don't think hold water on the issues being discussed). I use a wide number of translations -- but because I read Greek and Hebrew I really look at the text in that light.
@@blakeostler8965 That's fine. However, if your reading the "Hebrew".. it begs the question which Hebrew? if deviating off the KJV, which is based largely on the MT , and the NIV seems to keep to that as well.. whereas other newer translations tend to incorporate more up to date source texts.. like the Dead Sea Scrolls and older manuscripts, which the NIV or KJV ignore or simply they hadn't been discovered. Just saying. I personally like the NRSVUE.
Foe one. We do not know the content in full of the letter he is answering.mentioned in verse one. I talk about this often. It is impossible to know all of what the New Testament members were tought by the Apostles , because the letters weren't Sunday school. You could only have learned what the New Testament Christians knew by going to church then, and by God revealing what was not in the letters to prophets today. Today meaning this Era of Christianity. Very arrogant. People that think too highly of themselves comment contrary to a prophet of God. You two are supporting the teachings of the true church tought by one called of God, not some I studied, so I know arrogant person teaching contrary to the prophets. On Paul's comment about the time is short. In another letter he says in the last times men will deny the faith teaching doctrines of devils forbidding to marry. In the last times. Doesn't sound too eminent. Of course someone addicted to the spirit of ego will have some, I know Aramaic answer contrary to the last days, or some far off future time. Paul also says I would that if you are married act as if you are not. He was also a Pharisees who was required to be married by age 17. I'm pretty sure that's Josephus (sp?) Who was also a Pharisees
At 4:00 - A strawman argument is when you create a weak argument which you then knock down. Dan isn't creating or misrepresenting these weak arguments, he's merely choosing to engage them. This is a very twisted/poor example of a strawman fallacy.
Except Dan has repeatedly shown that, for all his credentials, he misinterprets the scriptures as much as anyone. He doesn't even understand one of the core elements of the Gospel like the doctrine of the family.
Actually a straw man argument consists in taking on a weaker argument when a stronger argument is available and the response to the weaker is treated as adequately treating the issue. That is exactly what Dan does.
@@blakeostler8965 Simply because you believe that the arguments which you like are stronger than the ones which he chooses to address does not mean that he's creating a strawman. Look it up. You're a lawyer, which means that you argue well. However, when lawyers do history, it generally ends poorly. Joseph Smith III argued that Joseph Smith Jr never practiced polygamy. Frances Kirkham argued that seer stones were not used to translate the Book of Mormon. Dallin Oaks argued that a salamander in the 1800s could be an angel and it would make sense for it to led Joseph to the golden plates. All great at making arguments, but none aged well.
@@jaredshipp9207 Perhaps you could help me better understand that core doctrine on the family: Is it that a man must have at least 3 wives to be in church leadership and to make it to the celestial kingdom - an eternal law which has always existed when God's true church is on the earth as taught repeatedly by church leaders from 1852-1876 or is it an exception to Gods standing law of monogamy as is taught by the church today? Perhaps Dan is teaching the Bible on its own terms rather than imposing your dogma onto it's teachings. Is that what upsets you?
@@scottvance74 Plural marriage being a necessity for exaltation has never been consistently taught by Church leaders. This is the importance of taking the combined information afforded us in both scripture and modern prophets, as well as in the temple. Marriage between a man and woman, sealed by the priesthood, in the same pattern as first established with Adam and Eve, is the requisite for exaltation. And even if one such as yourself are still left with doubts regarding plural marriage, it's dishonest of you to somehow equate that to gay marriage. One could at least argue there is precedent in both scripture and in modern times for plural marriage. But that still involved the male and female. Never marriage between the same sex, which has been consistently and routinely condemned throughout time. And anyone familiar with McClellan can clearly see his personal and political views are the main driver behind how he interprets the Bible. The last thing he is doing is taking it on it's own terms, as much as you might like to think so.
Jason, at the 54 min mark while speaking of what is necessary to enter into the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom you failed to mention that a plurality of wives was also necessary, according to Brigham Young. Why did you leave that out? Was Brigham leading the church astray?
You are distorting what Brigham and others taught. Research a bit more. Plural marriage was not a universal requirement, and only a small percentage of LDS ever practiced it.
@@lemjwp1756 I have read THOUSANDS of pages of church history books and The Journal of Discourses. Brigham and other apostles absolutely taught that plural marriage was required for the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. The number of wives one had meant greater glory in Heaven. YOU are the one that needs to do more studying! The fact that only 10-20% of men practiced polygamy only proves that it was like a club to get into .
@@brucejensen3700 Well, you missed a few references then. According to Wilford Woodruff, Brigham said "there would be men saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God with one wife with many wives & with no wife at all. Woodruff also said Brigham said "a man may Embrace the Law of Celestial Marriage in his heart & not take the Second wife & be justified before the Lord." James Talmadge said plural marriage is not essential, and does not define the new and everlasting covenant of marriage required for exhaltation. John Taylor, Woodruff and George Q. Cannon also said plural marriage was not required for exhaltation. There are others as well. One statement taken out of context by Brigham made it sound otherwise, but a close reading shows he was speaking against those denying that God had authorized plural marriage thru revelation, not that one had to practice it. Joseph F. Smith said greater blessings came to those who practiced it during the time that it was commanded, but left men with one wife as still qualified for exhaltation.
It's the intention that matters. Dan is intentionally preaching false doctrine with authority. Manipulators use "charity" of others to manipulate people to his views.
Other passages which indicate that Luther seemed to understand the Bible was referring to pederasty Leviticus 18:22 NRSV 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. Luther’s translation 1545 22 Du sollst nicht beim Knaben liegen wie beim Weibe; denn es ist ein Greuel. Google translation 22 Thou shalt not lie with the boy as with the woman; because it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:1313 NRSV “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. Luther’s translation 1545 13 Wenn jemand beim Knaben schläft wie beim Weibe, die haben einen Greuel getan und sollen beide des Todes sterben; ihr Blut sei auf ihnen. Google Translation 13 If a man sleep with a boy like a woman, they have done an abomination, and both shall die of death; her 1 Timothy 1:10 NSRV 10 fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teachingLuther’s translation 1545 Luthers Translation. 10 den Hurern, den Knabenschändern, den Menschendieben, den Lügnern, den Meineidigen und so etwas mehr der heilsamen Lehre zuwider ist, Google translation To the whores, the boy-shiters, the thieves, the liars, the perjurers, and so much more contrary to the salutary doctrine
@@hansenjacob1986 Luther translation into German the following relevant texts Leviticus 18:22 NRSV 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. Luther’s translation 1545 22 Du sollst nicht beim Knaben liegen wie beim Weibe; denn es ist ein Greuel. Google translation 22 Thou shalt not lie with the boy as with the woman; because it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:1313 NRSV “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. Luther’s translation 1545 13 Wenn jemand beim Knaben schläft wie beim Weibe, die haben einen Greuel getan und sollen beide des Todes sterben; ihr Blut sei auf ihnen. Google Translation 13 If a man sleep with a boy like a woman, they have done an abomination, and both shall die of death; her Why does Luther use "boy" Printed copies of the MT were available before Luther's translation of the Old Testament in 1536. Luthers translation is used in Germany today.
Something common with left-leaning "scholars" like McClellan is, assuming they believe at all - and the more you listen to McClellan the more one doubts he really does - they see the Gospel through their worldview rather than seeing the world through the Gospel. McClellan holds to secularist, leftist views, which of course sees nothing wrong with homosexual relationships. So he has to work backwards from that starting point, trying to twist and manipulate the Gospel to fit what he truly believes.
Trying to Circumvent to get around God''s Commandments to allow that Which God will not permit in his kingdom will not work.... For Zion will only be redeemed with judgement, and her converts with righteousness. It won't be done any other way, this is the way that God does things. So I don't think homosexual behavior will ever be accepted in Zion as a church standard because it don't lead to conversion to the gospel.
Much akin to the attacks this channel did toward Dr Julie Hanks, I think it is important to understand the context of Dan's comments. He makes his comments from a Biblical scholarship point of view.. Not a Spiritual leader point of view. In other words, Dan tends to present Biblical information in a rather agnostic way. He seems to keep religious beliefs out of the scholarship. Much like Bart Ehrman. And I wouldn't appeal to either for Spiritual guidance, but they are very good an guiding us on what the text says and means within the context of when it was written, without all the subjective layering we all tend to do it. So just like Dr. Julie hanks gave comments from a Psychologist perspective, not a bishop or spiritual leader perspective.. It's wrong to attack their comments out of their intended context. We as LDS hate it when our enemies take our words out of context.. I watched Jacob push back on those who take his comments out of context.. so I find it a bit hypocritical on the part of both Blake and Jacob to attack Dan out of his intended context. I was acquainted with Dan many years ago when we both engaged in apologetics combating anti Mormonism on anti-Mormon forums. He was a great apologist for the truth and the gospel. That being said, I have noticed that Dan has a more liberal bent of late in some of his views. Whether that is a reflection of his personal beliefs, or just a manifestation that comes along with the liberal nature of scholarship, I can't tell.
So you are saying you can't see the overt left wing political interpretation of Dan's interpretation? To say that he is just neutral on this topic specifically is not very convincing. It seems it would be more accurate to say that Dan uses his biblical scholarship to try to show support for his political ideology. I am not saying he doesn't have any good points to consider, but, again, to say that he is 'agnostic' in the way he presents it. He very much has an agenda on this topic and follows in the well-trod footsteps of pretty much everyone to use the ambiguity or messages of the bible that can be interpreted in various ways to read their own views into it.......I am not saying he does this to this extreme on every topic, but this particular one he definitely does. His words are not taken out of context here. Dan did a video addressing the biblical view on homosexuality and gave his take on how it can be massaged to show that it isn't as clear cut as many wish it was. They address that context. Taking certain 'highlight' clips doesn't take it out or context.
I didn't "attack" Dan but pointed out the fallacies in his thinking and the evidence that he doesn't adequately address. I am also playing the language game of scholarship. I am addressing what the text means in its historical context based on objective scholarship. So your critique is not accurate IMO. If you could point out specific examples rather than merely making broad assertions that would be more helpful so that what you have in mind can be addressed.
@@lemjwp1756 it's an attack when they reframe Julie or Dan out of their intended context. That's why. If they simply disagreed, they would keep to the original context and not skew it.. That they skew it and reframe Julie or Dan out of context they do exactly what anti-Mormons do to LDS. It's kind of a strawman.
@@blakeostler8965 It may seem as a broad assertion, and perhaps you are correct there, but it comes from the overall gist that your presentation took on.. with also the back drop of some history I have seen with Jacob's attacks on Dr. Julie Hanks, who I only have become aware of because of Jacobs channel. However, the over arching feel that came shouting out, is Dan is wrong because it's not conforming to a more Conservative LDS religious beliefs. And I will agree Dan in this instance seems to have a more liberal bent. However Dan in the past has always come across to me as being very careful to put Biblical texts into their true historical context. A context which for better or worse doesn't always square with religious beliefs. Dr. Erman does the same and so did the late Dr Heiser. All of whom I appreciate their scholarship of the Biblical text. Do I agree with them religiously, no.. So in giving some specifics,.. I think it where you were reading specific meaning into Pauls letters, and parsing out certain words, and it just felt like you were projecting LDS values into what Paul was trying to say.. I might agree from a faith perspective, but I think Dan is just presenting it from a textual scholarship point of view. I had interaction with Dan many years ago when we both combated the misinformation on various anti-Mormon websites. I assume he is still an active member of the church.. So I try to see his comments he makes on a lot of his videos as presenting facts about the Biblical text in scholarly perspective.. which as I mentioned we debated (not against one another) but against the anti-Mormon apologists, who take Biblical text way out of context to push their religious agenda. Sometimes I see LDS do the same.
On some level does it matter what Paul said? As Mormons you guys have a profit & he/they have made clear what they think on this issue, so wouldn’t you follow that before the Bible?
It’s true that the Lord is alive and in charge of His church, not a sleeping or dead God who reveals nothing more. Latter-day Saints are highly literate in scriptural matters because it helps put into context the entirety of the Plan of Salvation. Protestants, for example, exist in permanent presentist state of failure because they conceive of a Bible that was always in existence, and misread the scriptures to that end. Scripture study with an eye to history lends credibility and support to LDS positions, and strengthens testimonies per the multiple witness model
@@davidjanbaz7728 The Restored Gospel is historical Christianity, going back to the beginning with Adam and Eve, the first Christians. Your version of Christianity is 2nd century-forward apostate Christianity.
17:12 “he recognizes that we are sexual beings and that if we don’t satisfy our sexual desires, we’ll be subject to temptation” So hypocritical when you are talking about how homosexual people shout never satisfy their sexual desires….
Dan loves his false doctrines (idolatry) so much it's hard to imagine he's still a member of the church. At this point, why would he want to be, except to lead others astray with him.
He’s following the path they all do. They use counterfeit authority from church membership to push the generic worldly nonsense, and then when they’re ousted for priestcraft and apostasy, they use it to fundraise and boost their worldly image more.
Dan, Dehlin, MS, JH and a mountain of others are simply TEMPTERS. What is a tempter? A Tempter: “Perhaps the worst of all conditions which we can create for ourselves is to become a tempter and lead an innocent one into a life-style that is destructive. The tempter entices others to come out of a “closet,” to violate covenants which they have made with God. He promises emancipation and exhilaration without saying that such a course may be spiritually fatal. A tempter will claim that such impulses cannot be changed and should not be resisted. Can you think of anything the adversary would rather have us believe?” I love the words of the Bible, human nature, BoM, D&C, modern prophets and apostles who reiterate these words, like the Apostle Packer does in his “Covenants” talk given in 1990, it leaves no question as to who the Tempters are among us. I also love what Prophet/President Nelson stated recently during the October 2023 GC, shutting down the growing list of active and inactive Tempters: “Public opinion is not the arbiter of truth.” A clear rebuke of the tempters. The apostates/tempters are among us, it is easy to see them. They are empowered by popular public opinion creeping into the church vernacular and a more dark and fallen world overall.
@@scottvance74 It's not in the Bible. It's an educated guess based on the debauchery that took place there and how the place was destroyed. You don't have to believe it. My opinion.
@@lrsvalentine So now your going to make false, leftist, anti religion accusations. Go ahead, live your worldly life and see what happens. I made no mention of race.
Each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband. At this point you should have shut down the conversation and realized the your own church has been violating that standard you just stated with the practice of polygamy. But, you continue on in order to justify the churches current position on same sex marriage. Strange how ones interpretation can always be justified in the name of god.
Listen to the unedited version of our conversation. We specifically discuss levirate marriage which entails polygamy as God ordained. We also discussed the provisional nature of laws regarding marriage in light of various circumstances. Of course, you are not really interested in any of that. You really just want to score points and make it appear that those discussing these issues are supposedly unaware that the provision for male - female coupling to create life is simply unsound. However, there still isn’t any creation of life without male/ female as the basis of God’s creation.
@@blakeostler8965 I am not seeking any notoriety or points. I ask questions or make observations. If you think that the words of Paul justify Mormon polygamy in any way I would say it is only because you have no choice.
The scriptures are clear that one man, one woman is the standard unless otherwise commanded by God. There have been times throughout history where the Lord has commanded the practice of plural marriage. But it is the exception to the rule.
Unlike the rest of Christianity, LDS doctrine doesn't look to Adam and Eve as the template for marriage. Rather, our ideal (our 'mark') is our Father and Mother in heaven. I think we would do well to stress that at every opportunity, with love to all.❤
@david janbaz she was Ba'als mother. Otherwise you are right she was Yaweh's (God's) wife... there is evidence that the ancient Israelites worshipped both Yaweh and Asherah.
@@bobareturned Hey Boba Fett. 😊 When Wisdom is personified in the O.T. (like when she is with God at the creation) it is often a reference to the Mother goddess, consort of God. Sophia is just the Greek form. Silas (Sylvanus) wrote glowingly of Wisdom in the Nag Hammadi library.
Gotta love how Jacob, after stating that he does not wish to be guilty of fallacious reasoning, states that the reason homosexual actions are not proper is because that in the next life a participant in such actions is robbing himself of the highest reward. And yet Jacob cannot demonstrate or show ANY evidence of what life will be like for us after death or if life even goes on after death. Learning the hermeneutics of the Bible is interesting, but are people so willfully ignorant that they actually base their opinions regarding science, psychology and sexuality on an iron age book?
Not only that, they based their plan of salvation off a “vision” that Joseph smith and Sidney Rigdon had in front of a dozen people that conveniently only those 2 saw. When you read how it actually happened you realize that it was a con job and gullible people eating it all up.
Ah, Joshua: you look like you just got hit with a brick when he said 1 husband and 1 wife: all the Mormon prophets broke this teaching of Paul before the Revelation was changed as Mormon gods continually change their minds.
This issue isn't new at all however. Martin Luther recommended polygamy over divorce using the Bible as basis, whereas other contemporaries of his actively denounced the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I don't find it surprising that we continue to have this conversation even 500 years later.
Listen to the full discussion where we discuss the Levirate marriage command in Deuteronomy that entails the possibility of polygamy as part of the Law.
@@noelhausler2911 Where you got the idea that I dispute that we become like God (and indeed fully divine like the divine persons in the Godhead) I have no idea. It appears that you are not familiar with my thought. That is OK -- my books are written for an upper division and doctoral level philosophy courses. I don't expect everyone to have read them.
So why doesn't Blake dialog directly with Dan directly? Why doesn't Blake go on Mormon Stories? Why doesn't Blake go on Mormon Discussions? Since Blake is not speaking with the mantel of prophetic calling why should anyone take what he says seriously?
Because: (1) I have never been invited; (2) I was informed that both were afraid to ask because I am a lawyer who doesn’t back down. Take what I say seriously only if it is well reasoned and/or backed by reliable evidence.
@@blakeostler8965 Well I will let them know you are interested or if you are that convinced maybe you should contact them directly. I am sure they would give you all the time in the world to explain why the LDS Church is true. Fantastic!
@@jaredshipp9207 What are you afraid of? If you have the TRUTH if you have the POWER OF THE HOLY GHOST? If the facts are on your side? It is a great opportunity to evangelize!
@@ericredd5590 correcting Julie and Dan is “letting them govern themselves”. There’s simply no way that Dan continues sharing misinformation and the church members have to just accept it
@@ericredd5590 you just want Julie and Dan to have unfettered platforms to spew their worldly beliefs and you don’t want the members to say anything back. Sorry, that’s not how it works. You mention “members” but be warned, Julie and Dan are on the same path most Nehoric priestcrafters fall down. You may need to revise your comment when they get themselves expelled. Your disagreement is noted but ultimately it does little to affect members like Jacob and Blake from correcting obvious priestcraft.
the bible talks about same sex behiavour/intercourse (mostly between men) and not about lgbtq people.... really important to make that distinction clear.
This topic is not as complicated as it’s being made it to be. Genesis is clear, the Book of Mormon is clear, even D&C is clear. The union of man and woman has never changed as the basis; whether at times that included what we call incest, or multiple wives, or monogamy, concubines etc. The constant has been that it was and will only be recognized by God if it’s between men and women. There is a higher law, this doesn’t mean that if we fall short that a glory in the afterlife will be revoked. Dan is an attention whore, just like MS and the rest of the “my experiences don’t align with god so I’ll change doctrine that offends large or small groups” crowd. I’m over the rainbow mafia militia and I’m sure God is too. Let’s get back to obeying God instead of trying to make God obey us.
If the pattern is supposed to be "one man and one woman", like many people argue, then any deviation from that is significant. If multiple women can be married to one man, that is a deviation from the pattern. If any deviation can be allowed, then who's to say that others can't? It's clearly not a hard and fast rule, so let's not pretend that it is.
@@jmut714 the pattern has always been “procreative contract”. Let’s not pretend it was anything different. I’ll repeat what I wrote above in response to the rest.
@@jmut714 “The legitimate union of the [opposite] sexes is a law of God”. Sexual intercourse and the intimacy that occurs is the act of procreation that at the same time begets pleasure, which is to be experienced ONLY by married males and females. “God Himself decreed that the physical expression of love, that union of male and female which has power to generate life, is authorized only in marriage.” Where these words come from goes back to my original post; all over the Bible, all over the BoM, all over D&C, and repeated ad nauseam in modern times. Are you a Christian? Are you a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? Are you atheist? Are you religious at all? I ask to gain an understanding of where you’re coming from, that’s all. If you’re LDS or used to be, you know exactly how to answer your last question without me having to explain it. If you’re atheist then I see why it would be hard to fathom that we as simply “advanced animals” should have to exercise any self control with the natural animal urges to be intimate with anything that walks, breathes or can help our inner animal to “climax”, or as an atheist that an old ancient text with stories of a god and his expectations should have any sense of importance in our lives.
@@dcarts5616 My religious status shouldn't influence at all how you answer the question, your answer should be your answer. I want to be very clear on this topic. I experience much judgement from religious people because of my sexuality based on their rules and regulations for sexual behavior. So if I am to be judged for not living up to their standard, they sure as hell better be living up to it or they should face the same shame, ridicule, and judgement that I've been subjected to. If sex is only to be done for procreative purposes between a monogamous married man and woman, then anything outside of that is sin. That means sex while not ovulating is sinful. Unprotected sex is sinful. Sex for pleasure is sinful, even if done in marriage. So I expect all the religious folks who preach harsh "truth" against sinners realize just how often they sin themselves and just how hypocritical their behavior is.
Of course a person who thinks that others sexual proclivities and actions are their business to control would also feel the need to give esthetic grooming advice to Dan. I’m sensing “queer eye for the straight guy” vibes in this comment.
@All Those opposed imagine being so sensitive to opposition that even advise on grooming for your head shape is felt like an attack on your beliefs. The dude has a football shaped head, and you feel like you need to defend him because he likes homosexuality. Weep and wail apostate.
@All Those Opposed This isn't about controlling others. It's about what the Gospel teaches. Like McClellan, you wholly reject the doctrine of the family, including core teachings regarding gender and marriage. I've seen enough of your posts to know that much. McClellan is either woefully ignorant of scripture, for someone with a Phd, or he's being intentionally misleading. Period.
Yes Jacob gob made them male and female except for the millions that he made intersex (ambiguous genitalia or neither XX or XY). Seems like gob is quite a jokester.
It's not a hole at all. Its a product of the Fall, no different than cancer or depression, a missing limb, etc and will be remedied in the resurrection. You guys are in over your heads on these doctrinal topics.
@@jaredshipp9207 We're over our heads??? Those with a brain (and a heart) laugh at the idea of God cursing generations of people with dark skin to make them unattractive to white people. They also laugh at the idea of a god who is so so so concerned about his children in this world to the point that he sends an angel with a flaming sword to get his profit to sleep with underage girls. Cause that's high priority for Joseph...er God.
Seems like you do not understand mutations and that some are/Weil be born with afflictions. Jesus even addresses this with the blind man. The less then 1% of intersex does not excuse the millions of sodomites using this as an excuse my friend.
My LDS friend found out his daughter is gay and he's marching in the Pride parade with her this morning. Good people won't let religious beliefs divide their family. 2000 year old ideas about gender and sexuality aren't helpful or useful today
Nothing either we or Paul said suggests that the family should be divided. It is appropriate for parents to love their gay children. It is also appropriate for parents to love their children regardless of what they do. In fact it is just appropriate for parents to love their children. Period
@@blakeostler8965 In Luke 12:51 Jesus said, “Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three.” In Matthew 10:34 Jesus states, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to earth. You're a terrible apologist Blake. Dallin Oaks said LDS parents shouldn't be seen with gay children. He also said gay people shouldn't have jobs. Do you think people aren't paying attention?
@@nathanbigler You are twisting, misrepresenting and just flat out telling fibs. Dallin Oaks never said that LDS parents shouldn't be seen with gay children. Jesus wasn't talking about parents and gay children. Goodbye.
A parent shows love to their children the most by teaching them correct principles, including that the LGBTQ lifestyle is contradictory to the Plan of Salvation and is an eternal dead end. The irony of the LDS parents who throw the Restored Gospel out the window when they find out they have a child with same sex attraction is that they are throwing away the only thing which will connect them to their children for eternity.
Blake Ostler literally rejects the true character of God, as taught in the Prophet Joseph Smith's two final sermons. How on Earth is he in a position to lecture anyone on orthodoxy when he himself doesn't believe in central doctrines of the Restored Gospel? He preaches a different Gospel than that preached by the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators who have led our Church for the past two centuries.
@@JonathanWillistheAmazing So what has he been teaching that goes against restored doctrines of the gospel for the last 150 years? This has me a little curious
Both Blake and Jacob are confused when it comes to the doctrine in the King Follet discourse. However, that doesn't mean their criticism of the apostate views McClellan regularly espouses isn't well-founded. It absolutely is and they're right to call it out. McClellan needs to be exposed the same way Julie Hanks has been.
Well done. I appreciate the scholarship and spirit that went into creating this.
I always preface my comments with "I am not LDS, but", and this is to say I have always been impressed with Blake Ostler since I first came across him on a You Tube video about theodicy, the problem of evil (discussing B H Roberts' views). He is indeed scholarly and a thoughtful philosopher. So, I shall enjoy listening to this.
"B. H. Roberts' Theodicy" was the video, from 10 years ago.Worth a look..
He's not much of a philosopher just a right wing peddler.
@@lrsvalentine \\GEE THANKS. Given that you know less than nothing about me. Or my political leanings, that was a very brave comment to make - although totally misguided.
@@blakeostler8965 Nope. Which side of the political spectrum lambasts gay people? Pretty easy to connect the dots.
@@lrsvalentine I don't lambast gay people. It is obvious that you didn't even listen to the podcast.
Thank you for diving into these topics with clarity and love.
Should have just listened to our church leaders at the end. Forget the rest. Overthinking this too much. Thankful for modern day prophets.
I really enjoyed your discussion with Blake Ostler.
The extent people go to interpret the scriptures to fit their lifestyles is crazy.
I was just listening to Blake Ostler's podcast when I saw this going live. Thanks for the video!
It is so eerie when Dan makes these statements and conclusions knowing how the actual understanding coming from Paul is. These academics leading their speculative or conclusive ideas against our modern secular environment is just sad and obvious.
The only way to understand scripture is to know the doctrine and have the Spirit of God in us by keeping His commandments. We wrest the scriptures at our peril.
Thank you for the clarification. Great show!
Great video. Great discussion, great explanations.
Wonderful discussion! ☀️💕
Jacob, do you plan to have Dan on to debate Blake Ostler? That would be helpful. I was excited for this video when I saw the thumbnail, but quickly became disappointed when I realized it was mostly a conversation about Dan's position without Dan present.
Dan will never come on because he knows his feet will be held to the fire. It's much easier for him to pass himself off as an expert to the gullible TikTok generation who don't know any better.
I have invited Dan on my show. He has never responded
Why do URLs I try to use not stay in the comments? Perhaps you should let us link the relevant papers pro and con in notes
@@hansenjacob1986 That's unfortunate. I hope after your interview with Blake Ostler, Dan will change his mind.
Dan thinks he knows God better than paul 🤦♂️
Silly.. I don't see Dan making any such claims.
@@oceancoast92657 When you say to ignore Paul’s writings , You say YOU know God better than Paul . Perhaps God has appeared to Dan like he did to Paul ?
@@tomasina10 I don't recall he said 'Ignore Paul's writings' can you point that out? I do recall him framing that the Context of Pauls' writing is not the same today. And thus the context of what Paul was saying may not apply today, from a strictly Biblical textual point of view. And the Bible is full of such things. Some more obvious than others.
And who knows, maybe God did appear to Dan, and he has chosen to keep it private. We have very little information on God appearing to Paul.. just some conflicting accounts in Acts and how long that was kept private before being recorded in Acts is anyone's guess,. Joseph Smith kept his vision private for quite some time. And given we are each entitled to personal revelation, God may have appeared to Dan for Dan's personal revelations, meant only for Dan and not for anyone else.
Paul preached celibacy and for women to be silent. Are you living those teachings?
Wow! This is a super deep dive. Thanks so much! I am old enough to remember the days when the public debate was around whether homosexuality was nature or nurture ie people were trying to prove it was in the DNA etc. This debate was resolved in the public realm by the forced assertion that it dosen't matter because homosexual behavior can't be controlled anyway. I adamantly disagree. I maintain that the recent data proves that there is a huge socialization component in the spread of homosexual and related behavior. I say run away from those that say that we, the mere mortals, can decide what behavior is moral and what is not. It is pure hubris to think that reinterpreting the scriptures to mean that homosexuality is acceptable like Dan is and it should be dealt with the strongest condemnation for the evil that it is.
For people like Dan, remember that they start from the conclusion and work backwards to try and justify it. “We don’t want to be virtuous and we want to sin, so we will assert a position that does not allow us to live virtuously nor say no to sin”
@@DallasCrane You have to make a compelling argument that it is a sin
@@noelhausler2911 Dan is already compelled to know what sin is by virtue of his church membership. He doesn't have an excuse
@@DallasCrane Hasn't the church got some teachings wrong? Later dropped them.
@@DallasCrane The BIble is right. The church is wrong. Young said God revealed to him that Adam was God. Young denied the priesthood to blacks. Lester Bush's paper showed he was wrong.
Great video except for the new definition of "strawman" which is extremely different than the older one. The older one makes sense too.
Imagine 2 people on a debate stage. Person A walks to a straw man (scarecrow) next to Person B. Person A then beats the strawman without touching Person B. The strawman is in pieces all over the place. Person A claims victory in the contest.
Person A beat a "strawman". It "strawman" argument doesn't touch the actual beliefs, claims, or arguments of another person. It is a "Strawman Fallacy" to attack something other than your opponent (since the story is a metaphor, your opponent's actual beliefs, claims, and arguments).
You have captured the essence of the fallacy, and Blake’s mischaracterization, of it well.
Why will Dan go on RFM but not this channel?
it's because Dan doesn't always align with the churches position! Jacob said in a previous video that he would like Dan to stay in his lane which Dan isn't going to do! 😆
Dan is more likely to find agreement on RFM than here.😢
Perhaps because this channel has already attacked Dan in spite of his excellent scholarship and credentials.
@@scottvance74 Yep
@@scottvance74 Dan has an agenda of the minimalists scholarship of whom is all you get on Myth. Visions channel.
He attacks historical Christianity as well and the low hanging fruit of ignorant fundamentalist ( Mormon as well as Christian ) his laughable videos are easily countered by other Christian Scholars with PhD's .
Dr.Michael S.Heiser for 1 as his videos continue to debunk the type of scholarship that Dan has along with his Mentor's book of YHWH having a literal physical body with a Gigantic dick that appears in the Temple in Isaiah 6:1 from her ignorant interpretation of the Hebrew.
Maybe Dan as a Mormon? Likes this interpretation and maybe you would agree too but it's as Fringe as you can get in the Scholarship field.
Irrespective of where one ultimately lands on this hotly-debated topic, I'm quite surprised by the careful attention that both sides are giving to the Biblical writ. Why? Because Latter-day Saints are only obliged to offer the Bible authority as far as its correctly translated/transmitted. And, to my knowledge, top leadership has never weighed in on what is, or is not, correct on this topic and a plethora of others.
LDS only pretend they believe in the Bible: only the parts that they think agree with their doctrines.
1 man married to 1 woman is not something practiced in Mormon history by JS & BY before their gods changed their mind and gave a new Revelation.
There appears to be a reply, but I can not see anything.
Excellent!
How did you determine that the Bible has anything to do with god? Are there good reasons to believe we should follow a strictly biblically-based moral framework?
Step 1 - humble yourself and read it sincerely
Step 2- be willing to change and repent
Step 3- Ask God with sincere and real intent to not only know truth but to live according to truth He gives you
Step 4- wait for the answer
Fakers don’t get the answers. Only the true in heart have the mysteries of heaven unlocked for them.
Can U read? Have you ever read the Bible?
@@zionmama150 Sorry, it's not burning feelings that make the Bible true and other books false.
@@zionmama150 Is this the method you used to determine that the Bible has something to do with god or how you determined that you should follow a strictly biblically-based moral framework?
@@mikefoxtrot1314 your question is incoherent?
Keep this 🆙
Dan: Paul believed the second coming was imminent, so there was no need for children.
Jacob @18:15 : If God wanted us to be celibate that would lead to the end of humanity!
Well, yeah, Paul thought humanity was ending, and was teaching sexual ethics for end times. That's kind of the Dan's point.
Good work! You should get Dr. Gantt on the show
Let's just be honest. Anyone using TH-cam as a debate platform is always going up against and using a strawman argument because the real argument/defense is censored here.
I really just see you guys as silly, honestly. In every touchy topic you tip toe around the issue. Your conversations are always pseudo-reality.
arsenokoitai is a compound word - it is coitus with an arse. 😆
Why is it Hansen won't provide links to the source video, nor give Dan McClellen his proper title and credits? 🤔
Do it yourself, not hard to find him.
@@twinangels9352 It is proper practice to do it as as a creator. Jacob did it for Ostler here, but ignored it for Dr. McClellen.
@@joshua.snyder are you LGBTQ?
@@twinangels9352 I am not personally LGTBQ, but support them and their rights.
@@joshua.snyder us constitution and church principles are two different things. LGBTQ deserve there rights but there rights dont get to overthrow the church and what we believe. The woke professor's has a mouth but that doesnt mean hes right.
Love to see the faithful rejection of Dan, he hides behind an unstated faithful position and then proseletyzes a false and inaccurate interpretation that just so happens to coincide with a worldly view and a God that rejoices in sin
@S Taylor so from your perspective, either we accept Dan’s false teachings or we worship the guy who dismantles them?
Dull worldview 🥱
Jordan Peterson referenced Dan and it was good to see lots of others disassociating him and our faith
When and where was this?
When and where?
Please details…
Source?
@S Taylor
Do you do anything other than deconstruct?
What do you offer in alternative to those things you critique? Haven’t seen one thing yet.
Blake is a treasure.
If/when the church changes its stance on this topic, I’m curious what you will think and feel about it all.
When the church continues to NOT change position and reiterate what the Bible, Book of Mormon and modern prophets teach on this subject what will you feel and think ? Those that got “personal authority “ to have sex will double down or repent. Hence. The reason the second coming is called the “great and dreadful day of the Lord” For some it will be great for others dreadful.
@@todjohnman7347 what does the Book of Mormon teach on this subject? I'll wait.
@@craigcline5717 The Book of Mormon does not tell us we cannot abuse kids, have sex with animals…. So your argument is lame. But you may be so obsessed with sex you keep searching for any place you can misinterpret to condone some sexual deviancy.
@@todjohnman7347 don't create a distraction. You claimed that the Book of Mormon teaches about this subject. What does it teach? You can't cite anything because the Book of Mormon is silent on this issue.
@@craigcline5717 sexual sin is a consistent theme. Does the BoM tell you to not have anal sex with other men specifically. NO, but the summary of scripted and prophets do. Science even tells us this with the much higher rate of infections and complications that come from sodomy. Maybe get off the porn and you can clear your mind and spirit to what are gods commandments Craig.
2 questions for the creators. When you reference leviticus they talk about the verses that mention punishments. I would hope that regardless of where people fall on this topic, that everyone can agree killing people who engage in same sex intercourse is messed up and insane. My question though is why do people hold to this law of not practicing in leviticus but dont then hold to the rest that refers to this? I know people say well Jesus fulfilled the old law, but then why hold to Pauls teaching that your saying references the old law? (I hope its clear im not advocating Christians do that, im saying it doesnt make sense to get to pick and choose.)
2nd question, for this subject, I see that all creators get very specific in looking at all the words and their exact meaning in the verses. This definitely makes sense to me if youre going to make sure we know what the verses mean. But in following this, wouldnt we come to the conclusion that these teaching are only about male homosexual activities? Wouldn't it therefore not condemn female homosexual relarionships?
I guess both questions come from it appearing that in the end everyone picks and chooses what they want the verses to emphasize. Im no biblical scholar though. Just observations.
Good observations. Your questions weren't dealt with in this video, and it's unlikely they'll be addressed in the full-length video, but we'll see.
Romans 1:27 deals specifically with female same-sex relations. Paul expands Leviticus to include females because he is reading the verse in light of Genesis 1:26 and because by his time the probations in Leviticus had been expanded to females. That should answer your second question.
The answer to your first question is: We did not argue for applying Leviticus but rather the interpretation of Leviticus given by Paul. Paul is not strictly simply adopting the prohibitions in Leviticus - he’s expanding those prohibitions in light of God‘s purposes for creation in the Genesis creation narrative.
We address both questions in the full conversation that will gl live shortly.
@@blakeostler8965 do you have sources for your claim that by Paul's time the prohibitions in Leviticus had expanded to include females? If so, please share those sources.
Gnuse on Gagon.
"Oh yeah, I am familiar with Gagnon's work, and I have responded to it in my writings. He finds condemnation of homosexuality in passages where he assumes that the passage is speaking about homosexuality in the first place, when often it isn't. He also uses the Bauer Arndt Gingrich Danker lexicon selectively. Danker was one of my NT profs in seminary. Danker would fuss if he saw how his dictionary (he was the last editor) was being used. (Arndt also taught at my sem, but before I got there.) There are other entries for malakoi and arsenokoitoi in the BAGD not used in that article. My quick list of meanings in my last email comes from the much bigger Liddell and Scott as well as the BAGD.Robert Gnuse"
Gnuse argued that Paul is addressing an Isis cult in Romans 1. He has been followed by very few biblical scholars in his interpretations of these texts. Even Dan McClellan rejects his views. Probably not your best source to take on Gagnon's very thorough work.
worshipping the gay is the mark of the beast
Where’d my comment go
Question, why does Blake choose to use the NIV for his discussion.. It's a EVANGELICAL Biased translation, and carries forth many of the known errors and biases that many complain with regards to the KJV. The LDS standard is KJV, but it comes with flaws. He is obviously using the Bible Gateway site, so if you're going deviate from the Church sanctioned KJV, why not use NRSVUE? It's a much more accurate and scholarly accepted translation.
The NIV was just a handy text to address that was consciously aware of the issues regarding translation re: homosexuality. If you can point out where you think that the NIV biases the discussion that would be easier to address you broadside assertions here (that I really don't think hold water on the issues being discussed). I use a wide number of translations -- but because I read Greek and Hebrew I really look at the text in that light.
@@blakeostler8965 That's fine. However, if your reading the "Hebrew".. it begs the question which Hebrew? if deviating off the KJV, which is based largely on the MT , and the NIV seems to keep to that as well.. whereas other newer translations tend to incorporate more up to date source texts.. like the Dead Sea Scrolls and older manuscripts, which the NIV or KJV ignore or simply they hadn't been discovered. Just saying. I personally like the NRSVUE.
Foe one. We do not know the content in full of the letter he is answering.mentioned in verse one. I talk about this often. It is impossible to know all of what the New Testament members were tought by the Apostles , because the letters weren't Sunday school. You could only have learned what the New Testament Christians knew by going to church then, and by God revealing what was not in the letters to prophets today. Today meaning this Era of Christianity.
Very arrogant. People that think too highly of themselves comment contrary to a prophet of God. You two are supporting the teachings of the true church tought by one called of God, not some I studied, so I know arrogant person teaching contrary to the prophets. On Paul's comment about the time is short. In another letter he says in the last times men will deny the faith teaching doctrines of devils forbidding to marry. In the last times. Doesn't sound too eminent. Of course someone addicted to the spirit of ego will have some, I know Aramaic answer contrary to the last days, or some far off future time. Paul also says I would that if you are married act as if you are not. He was also a Pharisees who was required to be married by age 17. I'm pretty sure that's Josephus (sp?) Who was also a Pharisees
At 4:00 - A strawman argument is when you create a weak argument which you then knock down. Dan isn't creating or misrepresenting these weak arguments, he's merely choosing to engage them. This is a very twisted/poor example of a strawman fallacy.
Except Dan has repeatedly shown that, for all his credentials, he misinterprets the scriptures as much as anyone. He doesn't even understand one of the core elements of the Gospel like the doctrine of the family.
Actually a straw man argument consists in taking on a weaker argument when a stronger argument is available and the response to the weaker is treated as adequately treating the issue. That is exactly what Dan does.
@@blakeostler8965 Simply because you believe that the arguments which you like are stronger than the ones which he chooses to address does not mean that he's creating a strawman. Look it up. You're a lawyer, which means that you argue well. However, when lawyers do history, it generally ends poorly. Joseph Smith III argued that Joseph Smith Jr never practiced polygamy. Frances Kirkham argued that seer stones were not used to translate the Book of Mormon. Dallin Oaks argued that a salamander in the 1800s could be an angel and it would make sense for it to led Joseph to the golden plates. All great at making arguments, but none aged well.
@@jaredshipp9207 Perhaps you could help me better understand that core doctrine on the family: Is it that a man must have at least 3 wives to be in church leadership and to make it to the celestial kingdom - an eternal law which has always existed when God's true church is on the earth as taught repeatedly by church leaders from 1852-1876 or is it an exception to Gods standing law of monogamy as is taught by the church today? Perhaps Dan is teaching the Bible on its own terms rather than imposing your dogma onto it's teachings. Is that what upsets you?
@@scottvance74 Plural marriage being a necessity for exaltation has never been consistently taught by Church leaders. This is the importance of taking the combined information afforded us in both scripture and modern prophets, as well as in the temple. Marriage between a man and woman, sealed by the priesthood, in the same pattern as first established with Adam and Eve, is the requisite for exaltation.
And even if one such as yourself are still left with doubts regarding plural marriage, it's dishonest of you to somehow equate that to gay marriage. One could at least argue there is precedent in both scripture and in modern times for plural marriage. But that still involved the male and female. Never marriage between the same sex, which has been consistently and routinely condemned throughout time.
And anyone familiar with McClellan can clearly see his personal and political views are the main driver behind how he interprets the Bible. The last thing he is doing is taking it on it's own terms, as much as you might like to think so.
Jason, at the 54 min mark while speaking of what is necessary to enter into the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom you failed to mention that a plurality of wives was also necessary, according to Brigham Young. Why did you leave that out? Was Brigham leading the church astray?
who's Jason?
You are distorting what Brigham and others taught. Research a bit more. Plural marriage was not a universal requirement, and only a small percentage of LDS ever practiced it.
@@lemjwp1756 I have read THOUSANDS of pages of church history books and The Journal of Discourses. Brigham and other apostles absolutely taught that plural marriage was required for the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. The number of wives one had meant greater glory in Heaven.
YOU are the one that needs to do more studying!
The fact that only 10-20% of men practiced polygamy only proves that it was like a club to get into .
@@brucejensen3700 Well, you missed a few references then. According to Wilford Woodruff, Brigham said "there would be men saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God with one wife with many wives & with no wife at all. Woodruff also said Brigham said "a man may Embrace the Law of Celestial Marriage in his heart & not take the Second wife & be justified before the Lord."
James Talmadge said plural marriage is not essential, and does not define the new and everlasting covenant of marriage required for exhaltation. John Taylor, Woodruff and George Q. Cannon also said plural marriage was not required for exhaltation. There are others as well.
One statement taken out of context by Brigham made it sound otherwise, but a close reading shows he was speaking against those denying that God had authorized plural marriage thru revelation, not that one had to practice it. Joseph F. Smith said greater blessings came to those who practiced it during the time that it was commanded, but left men with one wife as still qualified for exhaltation.
@@brucejensen3700definitely! They justified it by saying straight is the gate and narrow is the way
It's the intention that matters. Dan is intentionally preaching false doctrine with authority. Manipulators use "charity" of others to manipulate people to his views.
Other passages which indicate that Luther seemed to understand the Bible was referring to pederasty
Leviticus 18:22
NRSV 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Luther’s translation 1545
22 Du sollst nicht beim Knaben liegen wie beim Weibe; denn es ist ein Greuel.
Google translation
22 Thou shalt not lie with the boy as with the woman; because it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:1313
NRSV “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Luther’s translation 1545
13 Wenn jemand beim Knaben schläft wie beim Weibe, die haben einen Greuel getan und sollen beide des Todes sterben; ihr Blut sei auf ihnen.
Google Translation
13 If a man sleep with a boy like a woman, they have done an abomination, and both shall die of death; her
1 Timothy 1:10
NSRV 10 fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teachingLuther’s translation 1545
Luthers Translation.
10 den Hurern, den Knabenschändern, den Menschendieben, den Lügnern, den Meineidigen und so etwas mehr der heilsamen Lehre zuwider ist,
Google translation
To the whores, the boy-shiters, the thieves, the liars, the perjurers, and so much more contrary to the salutary doctrine
You do realize they had a word for pederasty in Greek right? The Septuagint does not use that word
@@hansenjacob1986 Luther translation into German the following relevant texts
Leviticus 18:22
NRSV 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Luther’s translation 1545
22 Du sollst nicht beim Knaben liegen wie beim Weibe; denn es ist ein Greuel.
Google translation
22 Thou shalt not lie with the boy as with the woman; because it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:1313
NRSV “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Luther’s translation 1545
13 Wenn jemand beim Knaben schläft wie beim Weibe, die haben einen Greuel getan und sollen beide des Todes sterben; ihr Blut sei auf ihnen.
Google Translation
13 If a man sleep with a boy like a woman, they have done an abomination, and both shall die of death; her
Why does Luther use "boy"
Printed copies of the MT were available before Luther's translation of the Old Testament in 1536. Luthers translation is used in Germany today.
Something common with left-leaning "scholars" like McClellan is, assuming they believe at all - and the more you listen to McClellan the more one doubts he really does - they see the Gospel through their worldview rather than seeing the world through the Gospel.
McClellan holds to secularist, leftist views, which of course sees nothing wrong with homosexual relationships. So he has to work backwards from that starting point, trying to twist and manipulate the Gospel to fit what he truly believes.
100%.
Trying to Circumvent to get around God''s Commandments to allow that Which God will not permit in his kingdom will not work.... For Zion will only be redeemed with judgement, and her converts with righteousness. It won't be done any other way, this is the way that God does things. So I don't think homosexual behavior will ever
be accepted in Zion as a church standard because it don't lead to conversion to the gospel.
And the right wingers don't try to twist anything??? Gotcha.
@@lrsvalentine The examples are far, far fewer. I have yet to come across a left-leaning member who has a solid grasp on Gospel doctrine.
Your sneering comment about McClellan holding "secular leftist views" is irrelevant to debating the best interpretations of the text.
Much akin to the attacks this channel did toward Dr Julie Hanks, I think it is important to understand the context of Dan's comments. He makes his comments from a Biblical scholarship point of view.. Not a Spiritual leader point of view. In other words, Dan tends to present Biblical information in a rather agnostic way. He seems to keep religious beliefs out of the scholarship. Much like Bart Ehrman. And I wouldn't appeal to either for Spiritual guidance, but they are very good an guiding us on what the text says and means within the context of when it was written, without all the subjective layering we all tend to do it. So just like Dr. Julie hanks gave comments from a Psychologist perspective, not a bishop or spiritual leader perspective.. It's wrong to attack their comments out of their intended context.
We as LDS hate it when our enemies take our words out of context.. I watched Jacob push back on those who take his comments out of context.. so I find it a bit hypocritical on the part of both Blake and Jacob to attack Dan out of his intended context. I was acquainted with Dan many years ago when we both engaged in apologetics combating anti Mormonism on anti-Mormon forums. He was a great apologist for the truth and the gospel. That being said, I have noticed that Dan has a more liberal bent of late in some of his views. Whether that is a reflection of his personal beliefs, or just a manifestation that comes along with the liberal nature of scholarship, I can't tell.
So you are saying you can't see the overt left wing political interpretation of Dan's interpretation? To say that he is just neutral on this topic specifically is not very convincing. It seems it would be more accurate to say that Dan uses his biblical scholarship to try to show support for his political ideology. I am not saying he doesn't have any good points to consider, but, again, to say that he is 'agnostic' in the way he presents it. He very much has an agenda on this topic and follows in the well-trod footsteps of pretty much everyone to use the ambiguity or messages of the bible that can be interpreted in various ways to read their own views into it.......I am not saying he does this to this extreme on every topic, but this particular one he definitely does.
His words are not taken out of context here. Dan did a video addressing the biblical view on homosexuality and gave his take on how it can be massaged to show that it isn't as clear cut as many wish it was. They address that context. Taking certain 'highlight' clips doesn't take it out or context.
Why is it an "attack" when one disagrees (and explains why and on what basis) with the views of Julie or Dan, which they speak loudly and often?
I didn't "attack" Dan but pointed out the fallacies in his thinking and the evidence that he doesn't adequately address. I am also playing the language game of scholarship. I am addressing what the text means in its historical context based on objective scholarship. So your critique is not accurate IMO. If you could point out specific examples rather than merely making broad assertions that would be more helpful so that what you have in mind can be addressed.
@@lemjwp1756 it's an attack when they reframe Julie or Dan out of their intended context. That's why. If they simply disagreed, they would keep to the original context and not skew it.. That they skew it and reframe Julie or Dan out of context they do exactly what anti-Mormons do to LDS. It's kind of a strawman.
@@blakeostler8965 It may seem as a broad assertion, and perhaps you are correct there, but it comes from the overall gist that your presentation took on.. with also the back drop of some history I have seen with Jacob's attacks on Dr. Julie Hanks, who I only have become aware of because of Jacobs channel. However, the over arching feel that came shouting out, is Dan is wrong because it's not conforming to a more Conservative LDS religious beliefs. And I will agree Dan in this instance seems to have a more liberal bent. However Dan in the past has always come across to me as being very careful to put Biblical texts into their true historical context. A context which for better or worse doesn't always square with religious beliefs. Dr. Erman does the same and so did the late Dr Heiser. All of whom I appreciate their scholarship of the Biblical text. Do I agree with them religiously, no..
So in giving some specifics,.. I think it where you were reading specific meaning into Pauls letters, and parsing out certain words, and it just felt like you were projecting LDS values into what Paul was trying to say.. I might agree from a faith perspective, but I think Dan is just presenting it from a textual scholarship point of view. I had interaction with Dan many years ago when we both combated the misinformation on various anti-Mormon websites. I assume he is still an active member of the church.. So I try to see his comments he makes on a lot of his videos as presenting facts about the Biblical text in scholarly perspective.. which as I mentioned we debated (not against one another) but against the anti-Mormon apologists, who take Biblical text way out of context to push their religious agenda. Sometimes I see LDS do the same.
On some level does it matter what Paul said? As Mormons you guys have a profit & he/they have made clear what they think on this issue, so wouldn’t you follow that before the Bible?
Both sides are counterfeits: so its laughable from a historical Christian perspective.
It’s true that the Lord is alive and in charge of His church, not a sleeping or dead God who reveals nothing more.
Latter-day Saints are highly literate in scriptural matters because it helps put into context the entirety of the Plan of Salvation. Protestants, for example, exist in permanent presentist state of failure because they conceive of a Bible that was always in existence, and misread the scriptures to that end. Scripture study with an eye to history lends credibility and support to LDS positions, and strengthens testimonies per the multiple witness model
@@davidjanbaz7728 The Restored Gospel is historical Christianity, going back to the beginning with Adam and Eve, the first Christians.
Your version of Christianity is 2nd century-forward apostate Christianity.
@@davidjanbaz7728 There is no ‘ historical Christianity” as you appear to assert. Therefore, your standard of comparison simply does not exist.
@@jaredshipp9207now that is perfectly said. Thanks
17:12 “he recognizes that we are sexual beings and that if we don’t satisfy our sexual desires, we’ll be subject to temptation”
So hypocritical when you are talking about how homosexual people shout never satisfy their sexual desires….
Dan loves his false doctrines (idolatry) so much it's hard to imagine he's still a member of the church. At this point, why would he want to be, except to lead others astray with him.
He’s following the path they all do. They use counterfeit authority from church membership to push the generic worldly nonsense, and then when they’re ousted for priestcraft and apostasy, they use it to fundraise and boost their worldly image more.
Dan, Dehlin, MS, JH and a mountain of others are simply TEMPTERS. What is a tempter?
A Tempter:
“Perhaps the worst of all conditions which we can create for ourselves is to become a tempter and lead an innocent one into a life-style that is destructive. The tempter entices others to come out of a “closet,” to violate covenants which they have made with God. He promises emancipation and exhilaration without saying that such a course may be spiritually fatal.
A tempter will claim that such impulses cannot be changed and should not be resisted. Can you think of anything the adversary would rather have us believe?”
I love the words of the Bible, human nature, BoM, D&C, modern prophets and apostles who reiterate these words, like the Apostle Packer does in his “Covenants” talk given in 1990, it leaves no question as to who the Tempters are among us.
I also love what Prophet/President Nelson stated recently during the October 2023 GC, shutting down the growing list of active and inactive Tempters: “Public opinion is not the arbiter of truth.” A clear rebuke of the tempters.
The apostates/tempters are among us, it is easy to see them. They are empowered by popular public opinion creeping into the church vernacular and a more dark and fallen world overall.
@@dcarts5616 I love this! Thank you!
God says engaging in it is a sin. End of arguement. Pompei and Sodom and Gomorrah weren't destroying for nothing.
Pompei destroyed for sin? that's a new one for me. Can you point me to where you find that in your bible?
@S Taylor Nice try.
@@scottvance74 It's not in the Bible. It's an educated guess based on the debauchery that took place there and how the place was destroyed. You don't have to believe it. My opinion.
@@hrv4908 Rather a poor guess based on your racist right wing church's teachings .
@@lrsvalentine So now your going to make false, leftist, anti religion accusations. Go ahead, live your worldly life and see what happens.
I made no mention of race.
Each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband.
At this point you should have shut down the conversation and realized the your own church has been violating that standard you just stated with the practice of polygamy.
But, you continue on in order to justify the churches current position on same sex marriage.
Strange how ones interpretation can always be justified in the name of god.
Listen to the unedited version of our conversation. We specifically discuss levirate marriage which entails polygamy as God ordained. We also discussed the provisional nature of laws regarding marriage in light of various circumstances. Of course, you are not really interested in any of that. You really just want to score points and make it appear that those discussing these issues are supposedly unaware that the provision for male - female coupling to create life is simply unsound. However, there still isn’t any creation of life without male/ female as the basis of God’s creation.
@@blakeostler8965 I am not seeking any notoriety or points. I ask questions or make observations. If you think that the words of Paul justify Mormon polygamy in any way I would say it is only because you have no choice.
The scriptures are clear that one man, one woman is the standard unless otherwise commanded by God. There have been times throughout history where the Lord has commanded the practice of plural marriage. But it is the exception to the rule.
@@jaredshipp9207 isn’t it nice that men can grant themselves exceptions and claim god did.
@@ericredd5590 Your stubborn unbelief doesn't change reality. You're going to find out the hard way.
Unlike the rest of Christianity, LDS doctrine doesn't look to Adam and Eve as the template for marriage. Rather, our ideal (our 'mark') is our Father and Mother in heaven. I think we would do well to stress that at every opportunity, with love to all.❤
Heavenly mother comes from Asherah of the Canaanite pantheon married to Ba'al another Pagan god.
See: 2 kings 17:34 - 18: 6.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Naaaah...Asherah comes from Heavenly Mother, aka Wisdom and Sophia, all the way back before time. 😊
@david janbaz she was Ba'als mother. Otherwise you are right she was Yaweh's (God's) wife... there is evidence that the ancient Israelites worshipped both Yaweh and Asherah.
@@paulblack1799 lol where did you come up with sophia?
@@bobareturned Hey Boba Fett. 😊 When Wisdom is personified in the O.T. (like when she is with God at the creation) it is often a reference to the Mother goddess, consort of God. Sophia is just the Greek form. Silas (Sylvanus) wrote glowingly of Wisdom in the Nag Hammadi library.
Gotta love how Jacob, after stating that he does not wish to be guilty of fallacious reasoning, states that the reason homosexual actions are not proper is because that in the next life a participant in such actions is robbing himself of the highest reward. And yet Jacob cannot demonstrate or show ANY evidence of what life will be like for us after death or if life even goes on after death.
Learning the hermeneutics of the Bible is interesting, but are people so willfully ignorant that they actually base their opinions regarding science, psychology and sexuality on an iron age book?
Not only that, they based their plan of salvation off a “vision” that Joseph smith and Sidney Rigdon had in front of a dozen people that conveniently only those 2 saw. When you read how it actually happened you realize that it was a con job and gullible people eating it all up.
Ah, Joshua: you look like you just got hit with a brick when he said 1 husband and 1 wife: all the Mormon prophets broke this teaching of Paul before the Revelation was changed as Mormon gods continually change their minds.
This issue isn't new at all however. Martin Luther recommended polygamy over divorce using the Bible as basis, whereas other contemporaries of his actively denounced the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
I don't find it surprising that we continue to have this conversation even 500 years later.
Listen to the full discussion where we discuss the Levirate marriage command in Deuteronomy that entails the possibility of polygamy as part of the Law.
We also discuss various types of marriage relationships and celibacy in the more complete discussion that is not edited for time.
I think Gnuse is going to watch. He is aware of the discussion.
Good - then we can have a debate regarding his arguments that, in my view, don't hold water.
@@blakeostler8965 But then I think Dan can handle you.
@@blakeostler8965 The Backyard Professor is doing a video on "becoming like God" another issue I think you dispute
@@noelhausler2911 Where you got the idea that I dispute that we become like God (and indeed fully divine like the divine persons in the Godhead) I have no idea. It appears that you are not familiar with my thought. That is OK -- my books are written for an upper division and doctoral level philosophy courses. I don't expect everyone to have read them.
@@blakeostler8965 I imagine Carl Mosser has and have you convinced him?
So why doesn't Blake dialog directly with Dan directly? Why doesn't Blake go on Mormon Stories? Why doesn't Blake go on Mormon Discussions? Since Blake is not speaking with the mantel of prophetic calling why should anyone take what he says seriously?
Why would any believing, active member have anything to do with Mormon Stories?
Because: (1) I have never been invited; (2) I was informed that both were afraid to ask because I am a lawyer who doesn’t back down. Take what I say seriously only if it is well reasoned and/or backed by reliable evidence.
@@blakeostler8965 Well I will let them know you are interested or if you are that convinced maybe you should contact them directly. I am sure they would give you all the time in the world to explain why the LDS Church is true. Fantastic!
@@jaredshipp9207 What are you afraid of? If you have the TRUTH if you have the POWER OF THE HOLY GHOST? If the facts are on your side? It is a great opportunity to evangelize!
@@tgrogan6049 Don't waste your time. On the other hand, maybe wasting your time is all that trolls really have time to do.
Jacob, let’s ask Julie Hanks and Patrick Mason if they feel judged by you.
(Not that video evidence does not exist)
Their ideas are being judged not them personally. Though admittedly that is a hard distinction to make sometimes.
@@seerstone i think the church should stand by the old saying. Teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves.
@@ericredd5590 correcting Julie and Dan is “letting them govern themselves”. There’s simply no way that Dan continues sharing misinformation and the church members have to just accept it
@@DallasCrane I disagree. The church seems to set the standard but Jabob wants to make content and get views of him putting members in their place.
@@ericredd5590 you just want Julie and Dan to have unfettered platforms to spew their worldly beliefs and you don’t want the members to say anything back. Sorry, that’s not how it works.
You mention “members” but be warned, Julie and Dan are on the same path most Nehoric priestcrafters fall down. You may need to revise your comment when they get themselves expelled.
Your disagreement is noted but ultimately it does little to affect members like Jacob and Blake from correcting obvious priestcraft.
the bible talks about same sex behiavour/intercourse (mostly between men) and not about lgbtq people.... really important to make that distinction clear.
This topic is not as complicated as it’s being made it to be. Genesis is clear, the Book of Mormon is clear, even D&C is clear. The union of man and woman has never changed as the basis; whether at times that included what we call incest, or multiple wives, or monogamy, concubines etc. The constant has been that it was and will only be recognized by God if it’s between men and women. There is a higher law, this doesn’t mean that if we fall short that a glory in the afterlife will be revoked. Dan is an attention whore, just like MS and the rest of the “my experiences don’t align with god so I’ll change doctrine that offends large or small groups” crowd. I’m over the rainbow mafia militia and I’m sure God is too. Let’s get back to obeying God instead of trying to make God obey us.
If the pattern is supposed to be "one man and one woman", like many people argue, then any deviation from that is significant. If multiple women can be married to one man, that is a deviation from the pattern. If any deviation can be allowed, then who's to say that others can't? It's clearly not a hard and fast rule, so let's not pretend that it is.
@@jmut714 the pattern has always been “procreative contract”. Let’s not pretend it was anything different. I’ll repeat what I wrote above in response to the rest.
@@dcarts5616 So sex is only to be done for the express purpose of procreation then?
@@jmut714 “The legitimate union of the [opposite] sexes is a law of God”. Sexual intercourse and the intimacy that occurs is the act of procreation that at the same time begets pleasure, which is to be experienced ONLY by married males and females. “God Himself decreed that the physical expression of love, that union of male and female which has power to generate life, is authorized only in marriage.” Where these words come from goes back to my original post; all over the Bible, all over the BoM, all over D&C, and repeated ad nauseam in modern times.
Are you a Christian? Are you a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? Are you atheist? Are you religious at all? I ask to gain an understanding of where you’re coming from, that’s all. If you’re LDS or used to be, you know exactly how to answer your last question without me having to explain it. If you’re atheist then I see why it would be hard to fathom that we as simply “advanced animals” should have to exercise any self control with the natural animal urges to be intimate with anything that walks, breathes or can help our inner animal to “climax”, or as an atheist that an old ancient text with stories of a god and his expectations should have any sense of importance in our lives.
@@dcarts5616 My religious status shouldn't influence at all how you answer the question, your answer should be your answer.
I want to be very clear on this topic. I experience much judgement from religious people because of my sexuality based on their rules and regulations for sexual behavior. So if I am to be judged for not living up to their standard, they sure as hell better be living up to it or they should face the same shame, ridicule, and judgement that I've been subjected to.
If sex is only to be done for procreative purposes between a monogamous married man and woman, then anything outside of that is sin. That means sex while not ovulating is sinful. Unprotected sex is sinful. Sex for pleasure is sinful, even if done in marriage. So I expect all the religious folks who preach harsh "truth" against sinners realize just how often they sin themselves and just how hypocritical their behavior is.
Making friends with a false prophet, nooo thanks.
what are you talking about
@@SaxSpy woke professor teaches his own evil doctrine.
Dan needs to shave his beard. The dude has a long hades shaped head. Easter island over here
Of course a person who thinks that others sexual proclivities and actions are their business to control would also feel the need to give esthetic grooming advice to Dan. I’m sensing “queer eye for the straight guy” vibes in this comment.
@All Those opposed imagine being so sensitive to opposition that even advise on grooming for your head shape is felt like an attack on your beliefs.
The dude has a football shaped head, and you feel like you need to defend him because he likes homosexuality.
Weep and wail apostate.
@@Allthoseopposed 🤣
@All Those Opposed This isn't about controlling others. It's about what the Gospel teaches. Like McClellan, you wholly reject the doctrine of the family, including core teachings regarding gender and marriage. I've seen enough of your posts to know that much. McClellan is either woefully ignorant of scripture, for someone with a Phd, or he's being intentionally misleading. Period.
Let's make personal attacks. That is certainly Christ-like.
Yes Jacob gob made them male and female except for the millions that he made intersex (ambiguous genitalia or neither XX or XY). Seems like gob is quite a jokester.
It's not a hole at all. Its a product of the Fall, no different than cancer or depression, a missing limb, etc and will be remedied in the resurrection. You guys are in over your heads on these doctrinal topics.
@@jaredshipp9207 Oh sure. Keep telling them that they are defective. Your church truly is awful.
@@jaredshipp9207 We're over our heads??? Those with a brain (and a heart) laugh at the idea of God cursing generations of people with dark skin to make them unattractive to white people. They also laugh at the idea of a god who is so so so concerned about his children in this world to the point that he sends an angel with a flaming sword to get his profit to sleep with underage girls. Cause that's high priority for Joseph...er God.
Seems like you do not understand mutations and that some are/Weil be born with afflictions. Jesus even addresses this with the blind man. The less then 1% of intersex does not excuse the millions of sodomites using this as an excuse my friend.
My LDS friend found out his daughter is gay and he's marching in the Pride parade with her this morning. Good people won't let religious beliefs divide their family.
2000 year old ideas about gender and sexuality aren't helpful or useful today
Nothing either we or Paul said suggests that the family should be divided. It is appropriate for parents to love their gay children. It is also appropriate for parents to love their children regardless of what they do. In fact it is just appropriate for parents to love their children. Period
@@blakeostler8965 In Luke 12:51 Jesus said, “Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three.” In Matthew 10:34 Jesus states, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to earth.
You're a terrible apologist Blake. Dallin Oaks said LDS parents shouldn't be seen with gay children. He also said gay people shouldn't have jobs. Do you think people aren't paying attention?
@@nathanbigler You are twisting, misrepresenting and just flat out telling fibs. Dallin Oaks never said that LDS parents shouldn't be seen with gay children. Jesus wasn't talking about parents and gay children. Goodbye.
@@nathanbiglerDallin H Oaks said no such things
A parent shows love to their children the most by teaching them correct principles, including that the LGBTQ lifestyle is contradictory to the Plan of Salvation and is an eternal dead end. The irony of the LDS parents who throw the Restored Gospel out the window when they find out they have a child with same sex attraction is that they are throwing away the only thing which will connect them to their children for eternity.
Blake Ostler literally rejects the true character of God, as taught in the Prophet Joseph Smith's two final sermons. How on Earth is he in a position to lecture anyone on orthodoxy when he himself doesn't believe in central doctrines of the Restored Gospel? He preaches a different Gospel than that preached by the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators who have led our Church for the past two centuries.
What? Isn't he a scholar that supposed to stick to the central basic teachings on God.
Can you expound?
@@JonathanWillistheAmazing So what has he been teaching that goes against restored doctrines of the gospel for the last 150 years? This has me a little curious
Both Blake and Jacob are confused when it comes to the doctrine in the King Follet discourse. However, that doesn't mean their criticism of the apostate views McClellan regularly espouses isn't well-founded. It absolutely is and they're right to call it out. McClellan needs to be exposed the same way Julie Hanks has been.
@@jaredshipp9207 What ? how can they be confused? I know God and his Son have eternal natures.