Log Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 With respect to polygamy, this article satisfied any concerns I had about the practice.The same considerations are absent with regards to the topic of homogamy.
Bikeemikey Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 Being "black" was never a matter of violating the laws of God with offenses punishable by excommunication.I think it far more likely that God would do as Rob Osborn said and rain down fire and brimstone on the Church for doing what you suggest than that the Church would ever do such a thing in the first place, even incrementally.Actually, being "Black" was the result of violating the law of God (in the pre-earth life) based on the opinions of some in the early church. You are correct that it did not get you excommunicated. It did however keep you from the Temple, the Priesthood and the Celestial Kingdom.If we can change our understanding of this issue so fundamentally we can change our view of any issue. LIkewise if God can change his mind on something like this he can likely change his mind on anything.I kind of think it would be wise to leave any decision on what God does to God. All we can do it avoid pretending we know either the future or the mind and will of God and just be nice to people.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 I don't think that Elder Bednar was ever a free-love, free-wheelin, Summer of love kinda fellow.Nor is any apostle of God likely to be, past, present or future.I was responding to Analytics, who seems to think today's social trends are going to lead to a repudiation of the laws of chastity 80 years from now.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 So if gay married couples are eventually allowed to be baptized, does that mean you would you be avoiding Temple Square?The question is moot, because I am certain such a thing will never happen.
David T Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 (edited) Nor is any apostle of God likely to be, past, present or future.I was responding to Analytics, who seems to think today's social trends are going to lead to a repudiation of the laws of chastity 80 years from now.I think he defines the Law of Chastity as not having sexual relations except with one's spouse to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded, and doesn't expect that definition to change.That is the Law of Chastity as it was explained to me when I covenanted to live it. Edited April 5, 2012 by David T
Bikeemikey Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 Polygamy is always immoral unless authorized and commanded by God.Ok cool. Why not say the same from Homosexuality?If God can be contingent with Polygamy, why not other things.The point is we don't know if God will change his mind.People who used the "unworthiness of blacks to hold the priesthood" as an excuse to dislike, abuse, discriminate or hate will be held accountable to God. Likewise with Homosexuality. We should stop pretending we now the mind of God is made up on this issue and just treat all people equally - regardless of current day religious teachings about their sexual proclivities.There is nothing in the Gospel that ever excuses the discrimination of others, even if they don't live congruent with Gospel teachings.
Jaybear Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 Being "black" was never a matter of violating the laws of God with offenses punishable by excommunication.I think it far more likely that God would do as Rob Osborn said and rain down fire and brimstone on the Church for doing what you suggest than that the Church would ever do such a thing in the first place, even incrementally.Too late.
Bikeemikey Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 The question is moot, because I am certain such a thing will never happen.Your certainty is breed of an assumption that you know the mind of God on this issue.We never have such knowledge.Even prophets who know the mind of God at a specific time never claim to know the mind of God on that subject completely or eternally.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 (edited) Actually, being "Black" was the result of violating the law of God (in the pre-earth life) based on the opinions of some in the early church.That was never my opinion. And such opinions have now been repudiated by the Church, which never embraced them as doctrinal in the first place. This argument is quite irrelevant.You are correct that it did not get you excommunicated. It did however keep you from the Temple, the Priesthood ...Temporarily, and that was not due to any sin they committed. ... and the Celestial Kingdom.This is false. It was never the doctrine of the Church that they would be kept from the Celestial Kingdom. Edited April 5, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Log Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 (edited) Your certainty is breed of an assumption that you know the mind of God on this issue.We never have such knowledge.Even prophets who know the mind of God at a specific time never claim to know the mind of God on that subject completely or eternally.How, exactly, do you know Scott has no "such knowledge?"Whether or not he actually does, this seems more than a tad hypocritical on your part. Edited April 5, 2012 by Log
Scott Lloyd Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 (edited) I think he defines the Law of Chastity as not having sexual relations except with one's spouse to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded, and doesn't expect that definition to change.That is the Law of Chastity as it was explained to me when I covenanted to live it.By definition, the law of chastity is to refrain from sexual relations outside of marriage, and marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. See "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." Edited April 5, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Daniel2 Posted April 5, 2012 Author Posted April 5, 2012 Then will you make a commitment to come back in 10 years, to this board or whatever successor there might be to it? You did say "the next decade or two," and I want to revisit this discussion then. I predict you will be just as far off the mark as you are today.In fact, I'll put it on my calendar. I'll expect you and Roger Loomis. Until then I'll preserve your and his posts to quote on that date, which will be April 5, 2022.(On occasions like this, I almost wish I were not opposed as a matter of principle to wagering.)I've put it on my calendar, Scott--I'll be here Daniel2
David T Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 (edited) By definition, the law of chastity is refraining from sexual relations outside of marriage, and marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.Actually, by definition, Legal and Lawful marriage is what is specifically stated, and has always been understood, Scott. We'll see if the wording of the Covenant changes in light of Same Sex Marriage being more prominent throughout the world as legal and lawful marriage.You can get Baptized if you've received a purely secular at-the-courthouse civil marriage. Practically, it's not referring to any religious marriage ceremony. Edited April 5, 2012 by David T
Scott Lloyd Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 (edited) Actually, by definition, Legal and Lawful marriage is what is specifically stated, and has always been understood, Scott. We'll see if the wording of the Covenant changes in light of Same Sex Marriage being more prominent throughout the world as legal and lawful marriage.You can get Baptized if you've received a purely secular at-the-courthouse civil marriage. Practically, it's not referring to any religious marriage ceremony.But marriage has always been understood in the Church to be between a man and a woman. If anything, this definition has been reaffirmed in recent times with the family proclamation. Any covenant in the Church involving marriage must be understood in terms of that definition. Edited April 5, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Bikeemikey Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 How, exactly, do you know Scott has no "such knowledge?"Whether or not he actually does, this seems more than a tad hypocritical on your part.I think the numerous scriptures that state no one knows the mind and will of God be my evidence on this one.
Bikeemikey Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 This is false. It was never the doctrine of the Church that they would be kept from the Celestial Kingdom.If you can't participate in the Temple Covenants you can't enter the celestial kingdom.
Saints Alive Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 Polygamy is always immoral unless authorized and commanded by God.CFR on that point
Scott Lloyd Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 If you can't participate in the Temple Covenants you can't enter the celestial kingdom.As I understand it, it was never doctrinal that they would always be deprived of temple covenants.
Saints Alive Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 If you can't participate in the Temple Covenants you can't enter the celestial kingdom. baptism is all that is required for entrance into the celestial kingdom.
Sky Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 baptism is all that is required for entrance into the celestial kingdom.If this is true, then what's the point of the endowment ceremony and sealing ordinance?
Scott Lloyd Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 I've put it on my calendar, Scott--I'll be here Daniel2I'll put you on the guest list.
Log Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 If this is true, then what's the point of the endowment ceremony and sealing ordinance?Exaltation and eternal lives. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 Your certainty is breed of an assumption that you know the mind of God on this issue.We never have such knowledge.Even prophets who know the mind of God at a specific time never claim to know the mind of God on that subject completely or eternally.I know the mind of God well enough to understand the law of chastity.
David T Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 But marriage has always been understood in the Church to be between a man and a woman. If anything, this definition has been reaffirmed in recent times with the family proclamation. Any covenant in the Church involving marriage must be understood in terms of that definition.Then they would be wise to remove the phrase 'legal and lawful' and replace it with 'In the eyes of the Church' in the terms and conditions of the Covenant.
Recommended Posts