The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Your resolve, maybe. Any experience can be viewed as a test of some sort.I can see something to that but do not believe it.If true I do not think I want the Holy Ghost as a constant companion. He would be something of a git.
Mystery Meat Posted May 12, 2014 Author Posted May 12, 2014 I imagine lvjd66 will use this approach when he realises he needs to u-turn on his failed attempt to defend polyandry from the scriptures. Sorry, Mother's day pulled me away from the board for a while. I appreciate your snarky comments. They are indeed very good. I realized as I was away that you, as a master deflector, got me off topic (I do not need to do a u-turn on polyandry) and so for sake of this thread I will clarify my positions as it relates to the topic at hand. 1. There is no scriptural support for SSM. You say that is because it is a new concept; that ssm was not even possible until a few years ago. You are wrong as Rome and Greece (and others) had SSM unions and even marriages. Nero was married to two men and a woman. 2. The scriptures have established a pattern of marriage and it has always been man and woman.3. There is scriptural support for priesthood bans. There is scriptural basis for telling people that they should marry only those who can enjoy all the blessings of the gospel.4. As there is no scriptural support for SSM and as same sex relations have been condemned: prior to, during, and after the law of Moses, I have a very strong case (like 99.999999999%) that God has established that same sex relations are a sin under any divine standard. Further, we have no record of exceptions that were made for righteous men and women in gay marriages. This is because God does not condone Gay marriages. He never has. He never will. If he did, I believe it is reasonable to assume we would have had examples of such in scripture (it is worth noting here, that Paul condemned homosexuality in his epistle to the Romans, a society that did have gay unions).5. Any statement supporting marriage as only between man and woman does not need divine attribution because (as President Lee clarified) such attribution is only needed when revealing new doctrine. That is not new and in fact has been God's standard for years and years. If you would like to talk polyandry some more (although I am not sure why) start a new thread and we can do so there. 2
Tsuzuki Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 I can see something to that but do not believe it.If true I do not think I want the Holy Ghost as a constant companion. He would be something of a git.He'll keep you on your toes.
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 He'll keep you on your toes.I get into plenty of trouble on my own. Not sure that I need divine help.
Mystery Meat Posted May 12, 2014 Author Posted May 12, 2014 It's not like we haven't been forewarned: Isaiah 5:20; 2 Nephi 15:20 Edited to add: After eight pages, I should have guessed somebody would already have posted this reference. It is incredible to me that it is even a debate. I don't understand it. I can understand the support for equal civil rights. I don't get trying to argue that God endorses such relationships. There is no scriptural support for it. Period. And as President Lee said, when there is no scriptural support it is speculation. When it contradicts scripture it is false doctrine. Paul didn't say: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, because they were not married one to another, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 1
Tsuzuki Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 I get into plenty of trouble on my own. Not sure that I need divine help.I guess that's why it's wise to learn to walk before trying to run, and drink milk before you learn to digest meat. All things the Holy Ghost might test you on by using demons. 1
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 I guess that's why it's wise to learn to walk before trying to run, and drink milk before you learn to digest meat. All things the Holy Ghost might test you on by using demons.Wait, now he attacks toddlers learning to run. The Holy Ghost is messed up. 2
california boy Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Sorry, Mother's day pulled me away from the board for a while. I appreciate your snarky comments. They are indeed very good. I realized as I was away that you, as a master deflector, got me off topic (I do not need to do a u-turn on polyandry) and so for sake of this thread I will clarify my positions as it relates to the topic at hand. 1. There is no scriptural support for SSM. You say that is because it is a new concept; that ssm was not even possible until a few years ago. You are wrong as Rome and Greece (and others) had SSM unions and even marriages. Nero was married to two men and a woman. 2. The scriptures have established a pattern of marriage and it has always been man and woman.3. There is scriptural support for priesthood bans. There is scriptural basis for telling people that they should marry only those who can enjoy all the blessings of the gospel.4. As there is no scriptural support for SSM and as same sex relations have been condemned: prior to, during, and after the law of Moses, I have a very strong case (like 99.999999999%) that God has established that same sex relations are a sin under any divine standard. Further, we have no record of exceptions that were made for righteous men and women in gay marriages. This is because God does not condone Gay marriages. He never has. He never will. If he did, I believe it is reasonable to assume we would have had examples of such in scripture (it is worth noting here, that Paul condemned homosexuality in his epistle to the Romans, a society that did have gay unions).5. Any statement supporting marriage as only between man and woman does not need divine attribution because (as President Lee clarified) such attribution is only needed when revealing new doctrine. That is not new and in fact has been God's standard for years and years. If you would like to talk polyandry some more (although I am not sure why) start a new thread and we can do so there. I think it is safe to say that you can argue ANY point using the scriptures as justification for your position. Heck, you can even use the scriptures to justify murdering someone if they have something you want. I thought about pointing out the errors of each and every one of your points, but in the end, will that change your opinion? Will it change the current position of the church regarding SSM? Probably not. So let me just say what I want you to really think about every time you construct this argument. I know that God lives. I know that Jesus Christ died for our sins. I know that ALL of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ is for each and every one of God's children. One of the key components of the Plan of Salvation is eternal marriage. If there is still modern day revelation, there will come a day where the Lord will say, "the time has come for all worthy members of the church to enjoy the blessings of eternal marriage." For it to be any different would be to deny the very fundamental concept that has been since the very foundation of this earthly experience. ALL have the opportunity to be a full participant in that plan that was laid out in the pre-existence. Now pray about that and see how the Spirit reacts to that concept of FULL blessings for all God's children. 1
Rivers Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) I think it is safe to say that you can argue ANY point using the scriptures as justification for your position. Heck, you can even use the scriptures to justify murdering someone if they have something you want. I thought about pointing out the errors of each and every one of your points, but in the end, will that change your opinion? Will it change the current position of the church regarding SSM? Probably not. So let me just say what I want you to really think about every time you construct this argument. I know that God lives. I know that Jesus Christ died for our sins. I know that ALL of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ is for each and every one of God's children. One of the key components of the Plan of Salvation is eternal marriage. If there is still modern day revelation, there will come a day where the Lord will say, "the time has come for all worthy members of the church to enjoy the blessings of eternal marriage." For it to be any different would be to deny the very fundamental concept that has been since the very foundation of this earthly experience. ALL have the opportunity to be a full participant in that plan that was laid out in the pre-existence. Now pray about that and see how the Spirit reacts to that concept of FULL blessings for all God's children.Technically, all worthy members of the church can enjoy the blessings of eternal marriage presently. What needs to happen is a doctrinal change in defining marriage. The church could announce a revelation that states "the divine institution of marriage may now entail the union any two people regardless of gender." Edited May 12, 2014 by Rivers
The Nehor Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) Wait, now he attacks toddlers learning to run. The Holy Ghost is messed up. Oh crap, did I just blaspheme against the Holy Ghost? Now I go down to perdition.Damn you Tsuzuki! Damn you! Edited May 12, 2014 by The Nehor 1
canard78 Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) It's not like we haven't been forewarned: Isaiah 5:20; 2 Nephi 15:20 Edited to add: After eight pages, I should have guessed somebody would already have posted this reference. So... were the doctrines taught about blacks being less faithful in the pre-earth life and teaching that inter-racial marriage was against God's doctrine "darkness" or "light?" I suppose Elder McConkie answered that question when he stated (regarding the priesthood restoration to blacks): We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1570 So does that mean that sometimes even God's prophets can call darkness light? Sorry, Mother's day pulled me away from the board for a while. I appreciate your snarky comments. They are indeed very good. I realized as I was away that you, as a master deflector, got me off topic (I do not need to do a u-turn on polyandry) and so for sake of this thread I will clarify my positions as it relates to the topic at hand. 1. There is no scriptural support for SSM. You say that is because it is a new concept; that ssm was not even possible until a few years ago. You are wrong as Rome and Greece (and others) had SSM unions and even marriages. Nero was married to two men and a woman. 2. The scriptures have established a pattern of marriage and it has always been man and woman.3. There is scriptural support for priesthood bans. There is scriptural basis for telling people that they should marry only those who can enjoy all the blessings of the gospel.4. As there is no scriptural support for SSM and as same sex relations have been condemned: prior to, during, and after the law of Moses, I have a very strong case (like 99.999999999%) that God has established that same sex relations are a sin under any divine standard. Further, we have no record of exceptions that were made for righteous men and women in gay marriages. This is because God does not condone Gay marriages. He never has. He never will. If he did, I believe it is reasonable to assume we would have had examples of such in scripture (it is worth noting here, that Paul condemned homosexuality in his epistle to the Romans, a society that did have gay unions).5. Any statement supporting marriage as only between man and woman does not need divine attribution because (as President Lee clarified) such attribution is only needed when revealing new doctrine. That is not new and in fact has been God's standard for years and years. If you would like to talk polyandry some more (although I am not sure why) start a new thread and we can do so there. You stated earlier in the thread that everything was a restoration and, therefore, had scriptural precedent. I suggested Polyandry has no scriptural precedent. You tried to say it did and then backed down from it. I might start a new thread given your reluctance to discuss it here. Regarding point '3' (and given you made this thread about a comparison of racial and sexual issues):- can you show me the scriptural precedent for specifically denying men the priesthood based on their skin colour? - if not, does it come under your "new revelation" idea. If so, can you show me the "new revelation" where God denied black people from having the priesthood, attending the temple, having auxiliary leadership callings (even ones not requiring priesthood, such as Primary presidency)? The 19th and 20th Century black priesthood ban has no basis in scripture at all (other than a mis-reading of scripture) and no evidence of it being a new revelation or restored doctrine. Inter-racial marriage was taught against as a point of being God's doctrine. Were they right to do that? If a faithful LDS white man and a faithful LDS black woman wanted to marry in 1940s or 1950s the church leaders would have taught them it was against God's doctrine. They could have raised their children in the church, he could have blessed and baptised his children. They could have been sealed by proxy in the temple or, if they lived until then, could have all been sealed in 1978. So given they would have been eventually able to enjoy all the blessings of the gospel, was the church in error to teach against it? I find it interesting that most (if not all) specific statements against same sex marriage (along with statements supporting priesthood bans and endogamy) are based on an appeal to a few ambiguous passages in the Bible. Joseph Smith said: "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 327) So, if Joseph Smith was so adamant that the Bible was not always a reliable source, can you provide any Book of Mormon or Doctrine & Covenant statements against either same sex marriage (or even homosexual relationships without marriage). How about a statement against black people having the priesthood? How about a statement against inter-racial marriage? Is the Bible all you've got? Bare in mind that other Christian denominations have the same Bible and are able to support and reconcile SSM. Edited May 12, 2014 by canard78 1
Rivers Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 There's nothing in the BOM, D&C, or PGP that addresses gay marriage or homosexuality. But they are addressed in Proclamation on the Family. So it all depends on whether you consider that document revelation and canonized doctrine.
canard78 Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 When it comes to assertions about JS, there is alot of garbage out there, so this is a formal CFR. Please present your the specific evidence so that we can decide for ourselves. This is a very serious accusation. You can peddle such nonsense elsewhere but you gotta come up with the proof in this forum. Either give a formal retraction of your accusation that JS had intimate relations with another man's wife, or give us credible documentation and evidence. DNA would be nice. I've been asked by the OP to keep polyandry out of the thread. I've started a new one to answer your CFR and to ask lvjd66 for a better scriptural precedent for Polygamy (given he claimed Ruth is one... which she isn't)
canard78 Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 There's nothing in the BOM, D&C, or PGP that addresses gay marriage or homosexuality. But they are addressed in Proclamation on the Family. So it all depends on whether you consider that document revelation and canonized doctrine. It isn't yet. Give it a few years
Mystery Meat Posted May 12, 2014 Author Posted May 12, 2014 So... were the doctrines taught about blacks being less faithful in the pre-earth life and teaching that inter-racial marriage was against God's doctrine "darkness" or "light?" I suppose Elder McConkie answered that question when he stated (regarding the priesthood restoration to blacks): http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1570 So does that mean that sometimes even God's prophets can call darkness light? You stated earlier in the thread that everything was a restoration and, therefore, had scriptural precedent. I suggested Polyandry has no scriptural precedent. You tried to say it did and then backed down from it. I might start a new thread given your reluctance to discuss it here. Regarding point '3' (and given you made this thread about a comparison of racial and sexual issues):- can you show me the scriptural precedent for specifically denying men the priesthood based on their skin colour? - if not, does it come under your "new revelation" idea. If so, can you show me the "new revelation" where God denied black people from having the priesthood, attending the temple, having auxiliary leadership callings (even ones not requiring priesthood, such as Primary presidency)? The 19th and 20th Century black priesthood ban has no basis in scripture at all (other than a mis-reading of scripture) and no evidence of it being a new revelation or restored doctrine. Inter-racial marriage was taught against as a point of being God's doctrine. Were they right to do that? If a faithful LDS white man and a faithful LDS black woman wanted to marry in 1940s or 1950s the church leaders would have taught them it was against God's doctrine. They could have raised their children in the church, he could have blessed and baptised his children. They could have been sealed by proxy in the temple or, if they lived until then, could have all been sealed in 1978. So given they would have been eventually able to enjoy all the blessings of the gospel, was the church in error to teach against it? Is the Bible all you've got? Bare in mind that other Christian denominations have the same Bible and are able to support and reconcile SSM. I am so glad you picked up on all of these. You will now see what I am getting at when I draw distinctions between the race issue in our Church and the SSM issue. One has much more scriptural support than the other. Prohibitions on homosexuality are very bold, strong, consistent, and straight forward. Any support for the racial bans are at best very weak (I still remain agnostic on the origin of the ban, but if you gave me a choice as to which on I was going to support using the scriptures it would be the prohibition of SSM and homosexuality). As I have outlined before, we have lots of biblical support that goes against SSM. We have lots of modern day prophetic statements. The biblical support spans three distinct time periods. You can question the translation of those scriptures all you want (in fact many scholars do question the translation of the prohibition on homosexuality in Corinthians, but the vast majority do not question the translation of the one in Romans). In fact, I find it very convenient that only now, after pages of debate, you are questioning the translation of the bible. Why the verses that have to do with homosexuality specifically? Because the go against your politics? Is it easier for you to pick and choose now which versus you will believe and which ones you wont? Why did Joseph Smith not correct these versus in his translation? It feels like you are running out of arguments now, and are trying to find one that will stick. Lack of reference to homosexuality in the Book of Mormon or D&C does not weaken my argument. We also have modern day prophets, who as President Lee said (thank you by the way for leading me to those quotes), do not contradict scripture and in fact support it. Why, if same-sex unions existed in contemporary society like in Rome, did Paul condemn homosexuality? Why did he not clarify that it was okay for Romans to have homosexual relations so long as they were married to their lover? Instead he condemned men being with men, and women being with women. You have not provided scriptural support for SSM. On the other hand, I have broad scriptural support for the idea that God condemns ssm and homosexual intercourse. Sex outside of marriage is sin, and until you can show me scripture support for SSM, gay marriage is no marriage in the eyes of God. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 I think it is safe to say that you can argue ANY point using the scriptures as justification for your position. Heck, you can even use the scriptures to justify murdering someone if they have something you want. I thought about pointing out the errors of each and every one of your points, but in the end, will that change your opinion? Will it change the current position of the church regarding SSM? Probably not. So let me just say what I want you to really think about every time you construct this argument. I know that God lives. I know that Jesus Christ died for our sins. I know that ALL of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ is for each and every one of God's children. One of the key components of the Plan of Salvation is eternal marriage. If there is still modern day revelation, there will come a day where the Lord will say, "the time has come for all worthy members of the church to enjoy the blessings of eternal marriage." For it to be any different would be to deny the very fundamental concept that has been since the very foundation of this earthly experience. ALL have the opportunity to be a full participant in that plan that was laid out in the pre-existence. Now pray about that and see how the Spirit reacts to that concept of FULL blessings for all God's children.God will not save people in their sins. Zeezrom learned that.
Mystery Meat Posted May 12, 2014 Author Posted May 12, 2014 I think it is safe to say that you can argue ANY point using the scriptures as justification for your position. Heck, you can even use the scriptures to justify murdering someone if they have something you want. I thought about pointing out the errors of each and every one of your points, but in the end, will that change your opinion? Will it change the current position of the church regarding SSM? Probably not. I have been asking for scriptural support for SSM and no one has been able to make such an argument. If what you say is true I look forward to hearing your scriptural justifications. I can't wait.
cdowis Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) I think it is safe to say that you can argue ANY point using the scriptures as justification for your position. Heck, you can even use the scriptures to justify murdering someone if they have something you want. I thought about pointing out the errors of each and every one of your points, but in the end, will that change your opinion? Will it change the current position of the church regarding SSM? Probably not. That is why we have living prophets and modern revelation. So let me just say what I want you to really think about every time you construct this argument. I know that God lives. I know that Jesus Christ died for our sins. I know that ALL of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ is for each and every one of God's children. One of the key components of the Plan of Salvation is eternal marriage. If there is still modern day revelation, there will come a day where the Lord will say, "the time has come for all worthy members of the church to enjoy the blessings of eternal marriage." For it to be any different would be to deny the very fundamental concept that has been since the very foundation of this earthly experience. ALL have the opportunity to be a full participant in that plan that was laid out in the pre-existence. Now pray about that and see how the Spirit reacts to that concept of FULL blessings for all God's children. You are correct. Many of us have defects which prevent us from have the FULL blessings in this life, but I know that the Lord will make up for those deficiencies in the next life. Those who are incapable of marriage for whatever reason in this life, ALL of them will have the FULL blessing in the next life it they are true and faithful, especially avoiding immorality. And that is why we have living prophets and modern revelation to guide us with such issue, rather than the wisdom and speculation of man. Edited May 12, 2014 by cdowis
california boy Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 God will not save people in their sins. Zeezrom learned that.So will God also not save the people who sinned in having an interracial marriage?
california boy Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 I have been asking for scriptural support for SSM and no one has been able to make such an argument. If what you say is true I look forward to hearing your scriptural justifications. I can't wait. Well that could be that you "conveniently" did not quote my entire post. Here is the rest of it' So let me just say what I want you to really think about every time you construct this argument. I know that God lives. I know that Jesus Christ died for our sins. I know that ALL of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ is for each and every one of God's children. One of the key components of the Plan of Salvation is eternal marriage. If there is still modern day revelation, there will come a day where the Lord will say, "the time has come for all worthy members of the church to enjoy the blessings of eternal marriage." For it to be any different would be to deny the very fundamental concept that has been since the very foundation of this earthly experience. ALL have the opportunity to be a full participant in that plan that was laid out in the pre-existence. Now pray about that and see how the Spirit reacts to that concept of FULL blessings for all God's children. There is plenty of scriptural support for "It is not good for man to be alone: And there is plenty of support for the idea that ALL the gospel of Jesus Christ is available for all of God's children. And that the Plan of Salvation is for all of God's children, temple marriage being a key part of that plan. You certainly can't find any scriptures that says that temple marriage is not for gays. You can't find any scriptures that say not everyone is entitled to full temple blessings can you. So What is more consistent with the teachings of Christ? God is no respecter of persons. God loves all of His children and wants all to receive the fullness of the gospel? The entire Plan of Salvation is open to all that prove themselves worthy including temple marriage? Or God's plan is not inclusive for everyone. Some will just have to forgo that part of the Plan of Salvation concerning eternal marriage. Temple marriage is not a key part of the Plan of Salvation. If you are black, you are not entitled to temple marriage. If you marry a black person you are not entitled to a temple marriage. If you are gay you are not entitled to a temple marriage. As has been pointed out before. Church leaders decided that temple marriage was not allowed for everyone once before. Is all they are doing now is repeating the same prejudices, this time directed at gays. They have no revelation to support their current excludinary practice.
california boy Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) That is why we have living prophets and modern revelation. You are correct. Many of us have defects which prevent us from have the FULL blessings in this life, but I know that the Lord will make up for those deficiencies in the next life. Those who are incapable of marriage for whatever reason in this life, ALL of them will have the FULL blessing in the next life it they are true and faithful, especially avoiding immorality. And that is why we have living prophets and modern revelation to guide us with such issue, rather than the wisdom and speculation of man. Sorry but being gay is not a defect. I am perfectly capable of being married in this life. What defect prevents someone from being married if they find a suitable spouse? Is there any other "defects" that the church is prohibiting from marrying in the temple? Can blind people marry in the temple? Can sterile people marry in the temple? Can lame people marry in the temple? Explain again why we have living prophets when they institute practices that were not revealed to them by God? Edited May 12, 2014 by california boy
cdowis Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) Sorry but being gay is not a defect. I am perfectly capable of being married in this life. OK, so that does not apply. You are responsible to marry according to the law of the Lord. You are certainly free to have a SSM but it will not be sealed in a temple. That is your choice. If you think this is unfair, unjust, "insensitive" or whatever, you can explain it to the Judge. Edited May 13, 2014 by cdowis
california boy Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 OK, so that does not apply. You are responsible to marry according to the law of the Lord. You are certainly free to have a SSM but it will not be sealed in a temple. That is your choice. If you think this is unfair, unjust, "insensitive" or whatever, you can explain it to the Judge. I am ok with the law of the Lord. I am just not ok with church leaders instituting policies on their own without revelation when it limits the full blessings of the gospel to ANY group.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 Were the Christians who believed that blacks should be enslaved/segregated because of the mark of Cain or curse of Ham any less bigots because their prejudice was "based" on the Bible?In my very biased opinion, the Bible isn't a Get-out-of-social-stigma card.That was a case of people cherry-picking scripture as it relates to linage (which I still don't know how anyone knows who Cain's linage is) to support the deplorable act of slavey. The odd thing is that John Newton (hope I got the name right) who believed such things and a wealthy slave trader, later saw his error through the same Bible, built a Church and then gave away all that he had to preach against slavery, and then wrote the most beloved Christian song of all time..."Amazing Grace". He, along with a member of his congregation, "William Wilberforce", ended the slave trade throughout all English territories. If we all continue to stay rooted in all scripture, then one day all will be free.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 I am ok with the law of the Lord. I am just not ok with church leaders instituting policies on their own without revelation when it limits the full blessings of the gospel to ANY group.This issue is not just a Mormon issue, but the scriptures are true or they are not. Even those who support SSM, do not support the lifting of any limits on marriage. This two edged sword cuts both ways, no matter whom it may harm. Even if it (in my case) harms those we love very much. This issue could have been settled long ago, but neither side will yield any ground.
Recommended Posts