Rob Osborn Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Nonsense. The top agenda item for destroying the traditional family would be to create an economic system wherein the family becomes less and less of an asset and more and more of a liability. You want to destroy traditional family, destroy the cohesiveness of the local community and neighborhood -- spread divisiveness and distrust get people to be afraid of letting the neighborhood help raise their family, replace family businesses and farms with large corporations and industrial farming, make a huge gap between the haves and have nots, etc. That is how you destroy family values. The Greeks were overcome by the superior military organization and tactics of the Romans not because of moral decay, Rome was destroyed because it allowed huge disparity of wealth and began to rely on mercenary armies which the emperors eventually got into bidding wars as to who was going to compensate them better, etc. Both Rome and Greek were both fairly indifferent to bi-sexual relations, Rome actually fell after it abandoned their pagan ways to make Christianity their established relgion. I can guarantee you that Satans number one tool for destroying the family is sexual immorality. 2
rockpond Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 I know Satans works. They are very plainly manifest. All homosexual acts are the works of Satan just as are his myriad of other sexual perversions and temptations. Just as I cannot accept the agenda of legalizing same sex marriage, I also too cannot accept homosexuality as "normal" behavior. Okay. And I'll keep believing pretty much the opposite of everything you said. And we can wait and see which direction the church goes.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 how could it be conemned of God if Moses is written to have concubines *AND* be a servant of God as well as God giving wives to King David for his righteousness?Yes. Of all the sectarian claims, this one might be the most internally inconsistent.
rockpond Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 (edited) I can guarantee you that Satans number one tool for destroying the family is sexual immorality. Deleted. I did not mean for it to be offensive. And apparently it wasn't funny either. Edited October 31, 2013 by rockpond
Scott Lloyd Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 (edited) deleted Edited October 31, 2013 by Scott Lloyd
Darren10 Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Do you not know what a Eunuch is? Someone is does not have normal sexual attraction either by castration or some other means Weren't they palace guards?
Darren10 Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 You have to kiss a lot of frogs before you find your prince(ss). Sometimes you need to, yes. But the goal is for a male to find a "princess", no?
rockpond Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 (edited) Cheap shot. Just a joke, Scott, not questioning his righteousness. But I deleted the comment since it apparently came across wrong. Edited October 31, 2013 by rockpond
Darren10 Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Please do not presume to know how the Holy Spirit testifies to me. Especially followed by ridiculous emoticons. The Holy Spirit is much better than you're letting on. You're using Paul as evidence that same sex marriage is not to be conmdemned?
Darren10 Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Not really something that I pretend to understand, I was just sharing with you the explanation I had been given. It's a relatively muddy area for me... In Jacob 2 we read that the Lord considered David's wives and concubines to be "abominable". NO! It's after David took a woman NOT HIS and murdered her husband that Jacob condemns; not all his wives and concubines.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Just a joke, Scott, not questioning his righteousness. But I deleted the comment since it apparently came across wrong.OK. I'll delete mine too. 1
Rob Osborn Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Okay. And I'll keep believing pretty much the opposite of everything you said. And we can wait and see which direction the church goes. The church remains affixed in their position. and what position is that? That same position that homosexual behavior of any kind is wrong and sinful. Sure, they have come out and made some statements on how we should treat people with same sex attraction but the church holds steadfast in maintaining that any act upon which one indulges those same sex attraction to any degree it is a sin. 1
rockpond Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 The Holy Spirit is much better than you're letting on. You're using Paul as evidence that same sex marriage is not to be conmdemned? No, actually I'm not.
rockpond Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 (edited) NO! It's after David took a woman NOT HIS and murdered her husband that Jacob condemns; not all his wives and concubines. Jacob 2:24 "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord." I'm not seeing the interpretation that you are claiming. Edited October 31, 2013 by rockpond
Darren10 Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Here's this on D. Michael Quinn: The Mormon prohibition on gay relationships is a relatively new development for the young faith. According to D. Michael Quinn, who was excommunicated from the church in 1993 for his writings on LDS history, homosexuality was tacitly accepted among early Mormons. Utah’s Mormon leadership saw itself in staunch opposition to broader American culture, and it was slow to catch on to changing secular mores about homosexuality. For instance, while other states adopted sodomy laws from the late 1700s on, Utah refrained from passing one until 1867. Even then, Mormon lawmakers were lenient in sentencing offenders. But all this changed in the early 1900s, when the LDS church began to seek legitimacy as a mainstream American religion, a struggle that intensified in the 1950s and continues today. Don't know about their entire take on Mormonism but it does verify Quinn's statement of homosexuality being accepted in the LDS Church until the mid 20th century. http://www.salon.com/2012/06/11/gay_mormons_challenge_church/
Darren10 Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Jacob 2:24 "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord." I'm not seeing the interpretation that you are claiming. Yes, including Solomon dates David *after* his fall from grace. His polygamy, nor Solomon's, were sanctioned by God.
jkwilliams Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Here's this on D. Michael Quinn: Don't know about their entire take on Mormonism but it does verify Quinn's statement of homosexuality being accepted in the LDS Church until the mid 20th century. http://www.salon.com/2012/06/11/gay_mormons_challenge_church/ Again, please find a source for this.
Darren10 Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Again, please find a source for this. Hard to and time is limited.
rockpond Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Yes, including Solomon dates David *after* his fall from grace. His polygamy, nor Solomon's, were sanctioned by God. So what the Lord meant in Jacob 2 was that David's wives & concubines were abominable after a certain time? Because you said in post #295 that God gave David wives for his righteousness. See what I mean? Muddy.
Darren10 Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Is this what "Sex Dynnamics" is about? Winner of the Herbert Feis Award from the American Historical Association and named one of the best religion books of the year by "Publishers Weekly", D. Michael Quinn's "Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans" has elicited critical acclaim as well as controversy. Using Mormonism as a case study of the extent of early America's acceptance of same-sex intimacy, Quinn examines several examples of long-term relationships among Mormon same-sex couples and the environment in which they flourished before the onset of homophobia in the late 1950s.
Stone holm Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 I don't believe the Church has ever taught that SSA in and of itself, without acting on it, is a sin. I have no memory of such instruction. Do you have documentation to the contrary?I tend to agree that he will not be able to document that. Although am thinking that undocumented attitudes have changed in distinguishing between people having "unnatural affections" and people doing "unnatural things" .
jkwilliams Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Darren, Quinn's argument regarding "same-sex dynamics" is that, in the 19th century, non-sexual forms of intimacy (hugging, holding hands, sharing a bed without sexual contact) between people of the same gender were more acceptable in LDS society as well as the broader society than they were later on. It's a gross misstatement to say that "homosexuality was tacitly accepted among early Mormons."
jkwilliams Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Hard to and time is limited. Sheesh, I found it with a single Google search just now: http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V28N04_119.pdf
Darren10 Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 So what the Lord meant in Jacob 2 was that David's wives & concubines were abominable after a certain time? Because you said in post #295 that God gave David wives for his righteousness. See what I mean? Muddy. 7 ¶And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. These were the words of the prophet Nathan to David. David was an exremely righteous and faithful servant of God and the Lord blessed him for it. Part of that blessing was to receive the wives of his master. But Nathan continues: 9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. 10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.11 Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun Here since David committed adultery and murder God curses David and part ofthat curse is that his wives were to be taken from him and "given unto [his] neighbor". (Bad things happened to them later on) Here the constant is tha arriage is according to God's designs. God gave wives to David for his righteousness and God took them away for his wickedness. His polygamy was, obviously given of God initially. After his fall from grace it was not and therefore a "whoredom". So was Solomon's. I frequently point all this out to Christians who condemn polygamy. It is at that point Jacob of falling from God's grace that Jacob condemns David's polygamy as well as Solomon's. 23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. Perveting the past to lust in the present, the Lord condemned having concubines (wives) amongst the Nephites.
Darren10 Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Sheesh, I found it with a single Google search just now:http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V28N04_119.pdf Ummm, I'm trying to find wher Quinn said that homosexuality was accepted among the LDS church and its leaders until the 1940s.
Recommended Posts