jkwilliams Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Ummm, I'm trying to find wher Quinn said that homosexuality was accepted among the LDS church and its leaders until the 1940s. That is my point: he never said that. You are the one making that claim, not me, and not Quinn.
Stone holm 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.pdfYeah as the saying goes that dog does not hunt. I don't think there was the tendency to draw conclusions about same sex interaction as there is today. It's the same argument that is made about the relationship between David and Jonathan by gay activists.
jkwilliams Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Yeah as the saying goes that dog does not hunt. I don't think there was the tendency to draw conclusions about same sex interaction as there is today. That's Quinn's point.
CV75 Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Yep... like I said: Stand your ground. And keep in mind, that nearly every other Christian religion in the world would likely use this verse as part of their explanation for why polygamy is forbidden. And an abomination.And they would be mistaken, of course because polygamy is still involves the covenant between a man and a woman, and as explained clearly in sccripture, when God commands it. There is still zero leeway in this scripture for a marriage between same-sex partners. 1
rockpond Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 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: 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. Perveting the past to lust in the present, the Lord condemned having concubines (wives) amongst the Nephites. To make sure I'm following your logic here: the Lord gave wives to David "for righteousness", took them away for "wickedness", and then retroactively called the plural marriage (to the wives which had been taken away) an abomination? And also, so I'm clear, something that the Lord considers an abomination can be done for righteousness if He commands it, right?
rockpond Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 And they would be mistaken, of course because polygamy is still involves the covenant between a man and a woman, and as explained clearly in sccripture, when God commands it. There is still zero leeway in this scripture for a marriage between same-sex partners. There was "zero leeway" in the original D&C for polygamy. Thank goodness for continuing revelation.
CV75 Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 There was "zero leeway" in the original D&C for polygamy. Thank goodness for continuing revelation.I disagree, since it was also clarified that the Lord authorized it as needed in earlier times as well, which was already evident from the accounts of the patriarchs in the Bible.
CV75 Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 To make sure I'm following your logic here: the Lord gave wives to David "for righteousness", took them away for "wickedness", and then retroactively called the plural marriage (to the wives which had been taken away) an abomination? And also, so I'm clear, something that the Lord considers an abomination can be done for righteousness if He commands it, right?Of course the abomination is in the lack of authorization when authorization is required. While we have examples of authorized polygamy in scripture, we have no examples of authorized same-sex "marriages." I understand you believe that such lack of mention still means they might have still existed, or that they could yet be authorized at some point in the future. But where we also need to live in the present and sustain what has been revealed, we are counseled to walk by the light that we have rather than by the light we have invented (Isaiah 50). We have been given plenty of light about marriage. 1
Darren10 Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 That is my point: he never said that. You are the one making that claim, not me, and not Quinn. It's credited to Quinn and I can see him saying that or that being a valid summation of Quinn's arguments since that's what Sex Dynamics seems to indicate.
Darren10 Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 To make sure I'm following your logic here: the Lord gave wives to David "for righteousness", took them away for "wickedness", and then retroactively called the plural marriage (to the wives which had been taken away) an abomination? And also, so I'm clear, something that the Lord considers an abomination can be done for righteousness if He commands it, right? rockpond; As I said, the Holy Spirit manifests Himself to you on a much higher intellectual scale than you'd admit. Yes, David received wives from God due to his righteousness. You cannot deny that's what the scriptures teach. Yes, David lost them due to wickedness. that's something that you cannot deny the scriptures teach. Jacob taught that the Nephites were using the scriptures perversely and taught that God forbade the Nephites rom having multiple wives / concubines. Obviously the point of reference for Jacob to say that David having many wives was an abomination was *after* David fell from grace. It cannot be before since God gave David all those wives to begin with. As for your, "And also, so I'm clear, something that the Lord considers an abomination can be done for righteousness if He commands it, right,"? Doesn't that summarize sexual activity? Where do I err?
california boy Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 If I were Satan and I wanted to destroy the family institution then the "gay agenda" would be a top priority for pushing onto Christianity. If you can convince the powers that be to legalize and even admire gay priorities then the acts of child bearing diminish greatly. Satan knows that sexual gratification and how one uses it has extremely great powers on the mind and body. He also knows that all forms of sexual perversions or sexual acts can be addictive even more addictlive than any drug on earth. Breaking down the family comes in the form of sexual temptation- getting people to try, accept, and eventually condone immoral behavior. His number one tool in this agenda is to convince mankind that it is OK and normal to engage in deviant sexual behavior. In classic times this brought the downfall to Greek nd Roman civilizations. The Greeks came to hold certain homosexual practices as godly and were widespread in their many perversions. No one can say they were "born" that way. It became the socialized accepted norm in their society. This is Satans work- no more and certainly no less! By constant bombardment into our homes Satan is attacking the family through television, internet, books, movies, magazines, radio, clothing, etc to break down conservative values long held in great esteem and is replacing long held Christian views regarding the sancity of marriage and sexuality within marriage by producing in our minds and bodies the same pleasurable feelings from this filth that which feelings should only be enjoyed and bridaled between married couples.I had a conversation years ago with a bisexual young female passenger in our vehicle. Out of the blue she asked- "have you ever tried a threesome"? Immediately there arose in me a desire of temptation to explore that. And then also instantly was the large red stop sign in my mind. This seemingly little thing had never entertained my mind and yet there it was. I can point out here that I have no real desire to try these sexual perversions but I also cannot deny that temptations of these types can and often do produce strong chemical reactions in th emind that people can and do get pulled into. To say that people are just born that way is Satans greatest tool and the very one in which he championed before mortality. If we let our carnality of our natural minds take over our bodies it would be no time at all before we were just like Sodom and Gomorrah! We have been commanded in the right and correct ways to express love and affection and sexual gratification. Only within the bonds of marriage can all those feelings be properly and fully attained and be of sanctity and holiness. The chemicals released into our bodies will be the same be it a homesexual act or a hetrosexual act and it is those chemicals that drive our desires. We are "born" with these chemical rushes at our disposal but it is up to us to bridal them and use them only in the manner prescribed by God. It is for our own eventual benefit that these proper feelings will come to fruition. Its truly sad that Satan uses these same chemical responses and feelings to distort and corrupt that which is most sacred and holy.We must be vigilant in knocking down and destroying the works of Satan. The gay agenda is just one of those things- a work of Satan. Are we to become as the ancient Greeks and slip entirely into moral decay? Well this post may explain why you have so many unfounded beliefs about being gay and gay marriage. Do you really believe what you wrote? If I were Satan and I wanted to destroy the family institution then the "gay agenda" would be a top priority for pushing onto Christianity How does gay marriage do anything to the institution of marriage? If gays get married, then straights will decide not to? Is that what you think? Would you divorce your wife because gays can marry? Do you think your children will decide not to marry because gays can marry? Give me a break. Satan's top priority?? How about blame the cause of failing marriage squarely on those that are participating in marriage and causing it to fail. STRAIGHT COUPLES rather than gay marriage. Quit using the gay population as your personal scape goat. In classic times this brought the downfall to Greek nd Roman civilizations. Where the heck did you get the idea that homosexuality brought down the Greek and Roman civilizations. Do you realize that the greek civilization lasted 1400 years from 800bc to 600ad? Their attitudes towards homosexuality was present from the very beginning of their society. It was well practiced in the "Golden Age". The Roman Empire lasted about the same amount of time if you include the eastern Roman empire that ended in the 1400 ad. Homosexuality was not even a FACTOR in the fall of either of these empires. What was common to both empires falling was the introduction of Christianity. Before Christianity was introduced both empires were doing quite well, infact at their zenith. So if you want to blame any one cause for the downfall of these empires it would be Christianity not homosexuality. Again, quit using gays as your own personal scape goat.
Rob Osborn Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 Well this post may explain why you have so many unfounded beliefs about being gay and gay marriage. Do you really believe what you wrote? How does gay marriage do anything to the institution of marriage? If gays get married, then straights will decide not to? Is that what you think? Would you divorce your wife because gays can marry? Do you think your children will decide not to marry because gays can marry? Give me a break. Satan's top priority?? How about blame the cause of failing marriage squarely on those that are participating in marriage and causing it to fail. STRAIGHT COUPLES rather than gay marriage. Quit using the gay population as your personal scape goat. Where the heck did you get the idea that homosexuality brought down the Greek and Roman civilizations. Do you realize that the greek civilization lasted 1400 years from 800bc to 600ad? Their attitudes towards homosexuality was present from the very beginning of their society. It was well practiced in the "Golden Age". The Roman Empire lasted about the same amount of time if you include the eastern Roman empire that ended in the 1400 ad. Homosexuality was not even a FACTOR in the fall of either of these empires. What was common to both empires falling was the introduction of Christianity. Before Christianity was introduced both empires were doing quite well, infact at their zenith. So if you want to blame any one cause for the downfall of these empires it would be Christianity not homosexuality. Again, quit using gays as your own personal scape goat. believe what you want but the gay agenda is satans agenda 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 My name is Quinn so I hope people aren't talking about me on this thread.
california boy Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 believe what you want but the gay agenda is satans agendalol. I completely dispute every point you tried feebly to use to justify this position, and you come back with this??? Your statement is complete frabrication and only shows your prejudice against gays. CFR the gay agenda is satan/s agenda. 1
Stone holm Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 lol. I completely dispute every point you tried feebly to use to justify this position, and you come back with this??? Your statement is complete frabrication and only shows your prejudice against gays. CFR the gay agenda is satan/s agenda.Look. No gays are not Satanic. SSM is not God's plan, but you are right gay activists fighting for their Constitutional Rights and to live with dignity is not Satanic. But spreading divisiveness in the land which is tearing and shredding religious faith apart is. So for those unwilling to accept any responsibility for this religious war that has been ignited, the actions of the gays are going to be attributed to Satan. Satan, I doubt cares whether gays live in committed relationships, but he does relish discord. Look at the arguments he is motivating people to hurl at each other over this issue, can their be any doubt that Satan is stirring this pot? 1
rockpond Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 rockpond; As I said, the Holy Spirit manifests Himself to you on a much higher intellectual scale than you'd admit. Yes, David received wives from God due to his righteousness. You cannot deny that's what the scriptures teach. Yes, David lost them due to wickedness. that's something that you cannot deny the scriptures teach. Jacob taught that the Nephites were using the scriptures perversely and taught that God forbade the Nephites rom having multiple wives / concubines. Obviously the point of reference for Jacob to say that David having many wives was an abomination was *after* David fell from grace. It cannot be before since God gave David all those wives to begin with. As for your, "And also, so I'm clear, something that the Lord considers an abomination can be done for righteousness if He commands it, right,"? Doesn't that summarize sexual activity? Where do I err? I'm not sure that you are in error. I think it's quote possible that, for example, where some types of homosexual activity are labeled an abomination in the Bible... They would not be such under further revelation and commandment from the Lord.
Darren10 Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 (edited) I'm not sure that you are in error. I think it's quote possible that, for example, where some types of homosexual activity are labeled an abomination in the Bible... They would not be such under further revelation and commandment from the Lord. Ummm, yeah, from one who makes a point of no explicit doctrine regarding homosexual marriage and therefore we should not condemn it, now you resort to only "some" homosexual practices are to be condemned. I guess that's a step in the right direction but still way below your spiritual pay grade. Modern-day revelation only condemns homosexual practices even more explicitly. Something pretty much all Christians already knew. Edited November 1, 2013 by Darren10 1
rockpond Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 Of course the abomination is in the lack of authorization when authorization is required. While we have examples of authorized polygamy in scripture, we have no examples of authorized same-sex "marriages." I understand you believe that such lack of mention still means they might have still existed, or that they could yet be authorized at some point in the future. But where we also need to live in the present and sustain what has been revealed, we are counseled to walk by the light that we have rather than by the light we have invented (Isaiah 50). We have been given plenty of light about marriage. No worries. I'm walking by that light... married in the temple and raising my children in the gospel. Hoping that if one of them is gay, the church might be a place where they can stay. And I enjoy watching the mental gymnastics you guys will do to justify the way polygamy has been turned on and off while telling me that I'm crazy for my viewpoint on gay marriage.
Stone holm Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 I'm not sure that you are in error. I think it's quote possible that, for example, where some types of homosexual activity are labeled an abomination in the Bible... They would not be such under further revelation and commandment from the Lord.No. The whole discussion of polygamy in this context is a red herring. Polygamy is only for those times when The Lord perceives a need to raise up faithful seed or other purposes. David and Solomon only came under condemnation in that respect for taking wives not at the Lord's behest. There would be no cause for The Lord to bless homosexual unions. It would contradict the eternal purpose of marriage. 1
Darren10 Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 (edited) CFR the gay agenda is satan/s agenda. If I wanted to set out to intentionally destroy a civilization and lead people away from God (loose their exaltation), which are Satan's goals, I'd be fully involved in the gay agenda. The logical end of the gay agenda (which I distinguish from there being people who are gay) is to use the force of the state to force homosexual acceptance upon society. There is rampant attacks from the gay agenda supporters to get their way. If you want a CFR, I'll be glad to provide more than one. Edited November 1, 2013 by Darren10
Darren10 Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 (edited) It would contradict the eternal purpose of marriage. Explicitly so. Eternal marriage is directly connected to "becoming God" including the power to create (worlds, gods, etc.). Procreation is not exactly a forte among homosexual relationships. Edited November 1, 2013 by Darren10
Darren10 Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 No worries. I'm walking by that light... married in the temple and raising my children in the gospel. Hoping that if one of them is gay, the church might be a place where they can stay. And I enjoy watching the mental gymnastics you guys will do to justify the way polygamy has been turned on and off while telling me that I'm crazy for my viewpoint on gay marriage. Why, in the world, is one of your desires to imagine that one of your kids were to be gay? And why can't they stay in church? Knowing the promises of the temple first-hand, are they not the promises you want for them?
Darren10 Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 (edited) My name is Quinn so I hope people aren't talking about me on this thread. You're so dead meat. Edited November 1, 2013 by Darren10
rockpond Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 Ummm, yeah, from one who makes a point of no explicit doctrine regarding homosexual marriage and therefore we should not condemn it, now you resort to only "some" homosexual practices are to be condemned. I guess that's a step in the right direction but still way below your spiritual pay grade. Modern-day revelation only condemns homosexual practices even more explicitly. Something pretty much all Christians already knew. What you've paraphrased above is not what I was saying. Or trying to say. My point was that if the Lord can call polygamy both an abomination and a righteous lifestyle when authorized by him. Then He could do the same with homosexuality. I, personally, do not believe that homosexual (sexual) activity is a sin when done within the bonds of marriage. Lest I be misunderstood. But I do recognize that is not the current position of the church.
rockpond Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 No. The whole discussion of polygamy in this context is a red herring. Polygamy is only for those times when The Lord perceives a need to raise up faithful seed or other purposes. David and Solomon only came under condemnation in that respect for taking wives not at the Lord's behest. There would be no cause for The Lord to bless homosexual unions. It would contradict the eternal purpose of marriage. David's wives were given him by the Lord.
Recommended Posts