Satan Really Is An Evil Genius

[Ahab]

I was saying that tongue in cheek (obviously not very well, though!).

I suppose my point was, a cafeteria approach to the Law of Moses can work both ways.

It can seem that way but the cafeteria approach is still not okay if it involves acting against God's will, so what we all need to find out is what the will of God is. And no we should not lean on the arm of fleshly mortal man, in either direction, so what we need is personal revelation from God to find out what the will of God is.

Anything less just results in threads like this where some are trying to teach others what God has taught them while the others are just refusing to accept it as revelation from God.

Anyway, all of that was besides the point that I had in my mind to share, and I would like to go there by first asking a question.

If 2 or more people of the same sex agreed to marry each other but not have sexual relations with each other would you consider that to be an honorable form of marriage?

I'm wondering if the problem people generally have with gay "marriage" is really all about the sexual relations part of the marriage.

[california boy]

Sigh. I don't disagree with any of the Law of Moses. I think every part of it was a command of God. I think there were things that were fulfilled (like the scriptures you quoted above), but there are clearly things that were not such as the 10 commandments and homosexuality. I don't see why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

Like I said,  You list two things.  but NONE other.  Do you see a problem in doing this?  Dismissing all the other laws of Moses, but only keeping the 10 commandments (which everyone agrees on) and then you pick out homosexuality, leaving all the others as being fulfilled.  Is there any other not related to the 10 commandments that are in the laws of Leviticus that you think we should still be living?

[Mystery Meat]

Maybe this will help me understand your position just a little bit better.  I think that everyone will agree that the 10 commandments hold a unique place in God's commandments.  And I think everyone will agree that the 10 commandments are here to say.  The problem seems to be ALL the other laws laid out in Leviticus.  I get that you are firmly convinced that homosexuality is still a part of the law of Moses that you want to see continue on.  Perhaps you can tell us about all the other laws of Moses.  

 

Are you ok with selling your daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7,

Owning slaves as long as they come from a neighboring country?  Leviticus 25:44?  

Stoning someone who works on the sabbath? (Exodus 35:2)  

Eating shellfish is an abomination? (Leviticus 11:10)

Not cutting your hair? (Leviticus 19:23)

 

I of course could go on and on concerning what the law of Moses consisted of.  If you are only saying that the 10 commandments and the one law against homosexuality remain,  I think you are on pretty thin ice.  So perhaps if you listed ALL of the law of Moses that you think should still be followed not related to the 10 commandments (since we both agree those stay.)  I will have a better idea where you stand.  Because at this point you seem to be only cherry picking the one law concerning homosexuality lumping it with the 10 commandments and dismissing ALL the others as no longer being relevant.

 

In regards to your question, I have made it perfectly clear countless times that I do not believe every thing that is in the Bible came from God.  I think there are many ideas and teachings put in there that never originated from God, the scripture in Leviticus being one of them.  You yourself admit that not everything in the scriptures came from God.  (See teachings quoted in Judges that I referred to and you dismissed as being from a bad person)

 

This is my position to make myself COMPLETELY clear.  I believe that Christ Himself came to earth and for 3 years taught us the important teachings that HE wanted us to follow.  He had 3 years to talk to us humans directly.  He showed us how He wants us to live. He taught us how to treat others.  He told us that it was not our place to judge others, but to worry about our own salvation and let God do the judging.  3 years of constant teaching seem to be more reliable than relying on some letter an apostle wrote or thinking that EVERYTHING Moses wrote came from God.  Prophets have included their own opinions since the very beginning of time.  Certainly the church in these latter days has had plenty of teachings from prophets that were not from God.  So me defending any scripture in the Old Testament is not something I am willing to do because I don't believe ALL of the verses in the Old Testament.  And I don't believe all of the stories told in the Old Testament as being true.  I don't think donkeys can talk.  I don't think that God stopped the earth from spinning. I don't think that the flood covered the entire earth and kangaroos hopped from Australia to board the ark and then hopped back after the ark landed.  

 

I hope that clears things up for you concerning my personal beliefs.

 

I don't believe that we should continue on with the Law of Moses. Do you even read what I write? Man alive. It is hard trying to discuss this with you. Homosexuality was prohibited before the law of moses, under the law of moses, and after in scripture. You still have to overcome that. Good luck.

[Mystery Meat]

Like I said,  You list two things.  but NONE other.  Do you see a problem in doing this?  Dismissing all the other laws of Moses, but only keeping the 10 commandments (which everyone agrees on) and then you pick out homosexuality, leaving all the others as being fulfilled.  Is there any other not related to the 10 commandments that are in the laws of Leviticus that you think we should still be living?

 

Yes, but as this topic pertains to homosexuality I picked it as it is relevant. I didn't think that would have been hard to deduce.

[CV75]

He had 3 years to talk to us humans directly.

This is simply not the case.

Some advice: don’t limit Christ’s word to one of the four gospels relating His mortal ministry as compiled many decades later. Look at the whole of His dealings with His children throughout history and scripture, and find where His message (in this case, about marriage) is consistent throughout. This message involves how we make and keep covenants as well as how we treat others.

Now you can say that we limit Christ by saying He won’t permit SS“M” in His Kingdom but there is no consistent indication that He will, would or even might.

[CV75]

The only mention of homosexuality in the NT is from Paul, who also taught that celibacy is preferable to marriage. UNDER CERTAIN SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES

 

There is no mention of homosexuality in any verse of restoration scripture. And while modern leaders have taught against homosexuality, what they have not done is claim any kind of special revelation on the matter. It seems we have inherited our position as a church on the subject more from the milieu of western Christianity than from anything else. NO HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP IS COMMANDED IN ALL OF GOD'S DEALINGS WITH HIS CHILDREN. SO NO RESTORATION / SPECIAL / ADDITIONAL REVELATION IS NEEDED ABOUT APPROVING/CONDONING IT; THE HIGHEST COVENANTS (D&C 132) ARE ALREADY STRUCTURED TO INVOLVE A MAN AND A WOMAN AS ONE FLESH, AND THE INITIAL COVENANT (BAPTISM) IS ALREDAY AVAILABLE TO ALL.

[changed]

• NT scriptures... 

  Men burned in their lust one toward another

  :Rom. 1:27; Abusers of themselves with mankind will not inherit the kingdom of God:1 Cor. 6:9–10; The law is not made for a righteous man, but for them that defile themselves with mankind:1 Tim. 1:9–10; Those who go after strange flesh are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire:Jude 1:7;....

[canard78]

I have already answered this. The scriptural support (for a racial priesthood ban) is tenuous at best. That is why there is no comparison between the priesthood ban (and what some call racism) and the ban on homosexual intercourse (in or out of what is being called SSM), because there is tons of scriptural support for the proposition that homosexual relations are a sin no matter the circumstance.

 

Edited to add: We don't know that God didn't institute the priesthood ban for whatever his reasons may have been. And while I don't see a lot of scriptural support for it, the ban in no way contradicts scripture. SSM does.

 

 

Please reread my post. I said justifying the ban based on scripture. They came up with ideas like pre-mortal conditions and curse of cain - both claimed to have been based on scripture and revelation. They incorrectly interpreted scripture to proclaim something as doctrine. The church now disavows it. So given there is "tenuous" support for the justifications (reasons) for the black ban and yet prophets were still able to find scriptural support for doing so, doesn't that suggest that sometimes their scripturally based doctrinal proclamations are not reliable?

[canard78]

Edited to add: We don't know that God didn't institute the priesthood ban for whatever his reasons may have been. And while I don't see a lot of scriptural support for it, the ban in no way contradicts scripture. SSM does.

 

Show me the evidence. I see no evidence for God instituting the priesthood ban. Where is it? There is none. Saying "we don't know that he didn't" is like saying "we don't know that God didn't want the Seahawks to win the superbowl." There's no evidence that he didn't want that, so therefore he might have made it happen.

 

Besides, the ban did contradict scripture. There is not a ban based on solely on skin-colour in the scriptures. So no precedent. There is however a directive of the opposite:

 

...he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

 

2 Nep. 26:33

[Ahab]

Please reread my post. I said justifying the ban based on scripture. They came up with ideas like pre-mortal conditions and curse of cain - both claimed to have been based on scripture and revelation. They incorrectly interpreted scripture to proclaim something as doctrine. The church now disavows it. So given there is "tenuous" support for the justifications (reasons) for the black ban and yet prophets were still able to find scriptural support for doing so, doesn't that suggest that sometimes their scripturally based doctrinal proclamations are not reliable?

I hope you're not holding your breath waiting for a leader of our Lord's church to announce from Salt Lake City, Utah, that we're going to start sealing same sex couples.

It just ain't ever gonna happen.

[Gray]

 

• NT scriptures... 

  Men burned in their lust one toward another

  :Rom. 1:27; Abusers of themselves with mankind will not inherit the kingdom of God:1 Cor. 6:9–10; The law is not made for a righteous man, but for them that defile themselves with mankind:1 Tim. 1:9–10; Those who go after strange flesh are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire:Jude 1:7;....

 

 

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

[Gray]

 

The only mention of homosexuality in the NT is from Paul, who also taught that celibacy is preferable to marriage. UNDER CERTAIN SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES

 

There is no mention of homosexuality in any verse of restoration scripture. And while modern leaders have taught against homosexuality, what they have not done is claim any kind of special revelation on the matter. It seems we have inherited our position as a church on the subject more from the milieu of western Christianity than from anything else. NO HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP IS COMMANDED IN ALL OF GOD'S DEALINGS WITH HIS CHILDREN. SO NO RESTORATION / SPECIAL / ADDITIONAL REVELATION IS NEEDED ABOUT APPROVING/CONDONING IT; THE HIGHEST COVENANTS (D&C 132) ARE ALREADY STRUCTURED TO INVOLVE A MAN AND A WOMAN AS ONE FLESH, AND THE INITIAL COVENANT (BAPTISM) IS ALREDAY AVAILABLE TO ALL.

 

 

 

"For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward."

 

But seriously, there isn't anything in there about commanding/approving of space exploration either, for the same reason as there is nothing in there about gay marriage. 

[Ahab]

Show me the evidence. I see no evidence for God instituting the priesthood ban. Where is it? There is none. Saying "we don't know that he didn't" is like saying "we don't know that God didn't want the Seahawks to win the superbowl." There's no evidence that he didn't want that, so therefore he might have made it happen.

Besides, the ban did contradict scripture. There is not a ban based on solely on skin-colour in the scriptures. So no precedent. There is however a directive of the opposite:

2 Nep. 26:33

You really don't know how far off the mark you are, do you.

I do appreciate it when I see what others can't see but at the same time I wish there was some way I could just make you see what I see, as I see it, for at least a moment, even if you later reverted back to seeing things as you see them.

[canard78]

...And there is not a single law in Leviticus that I don't agree with...

 

Seriously?!

 

3:7 - don't eat fat

11:4-7 - no eating rabbits or pork

19:32 - you must stand in front of the eldery

19:27 - don't cut your beard (at least not at the corners)

 

Do you do any of these things? Are you clean-shaven? Do eat pork? How about the fat on bacon? Do you always stand when old people are in the room?

[changed]

 

Besides, the ban did contradict scripture. There is not a ban based on solely on skin-colour in the scriptures. So no precedent. There is however a directive of the opposite:

 

 

The Levites used to be the only tribe working in the temple,  the Jewish people were the "chosen" ones, was that racist? - Different ages have held different practices, this is not to say that one age was not being led by God while another was.  The entire point of modern revelation is to lead people in their own age.  Either you accept modern revelation and changing practices, or you don't....

 

 

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Divorce is horrible... 

Edited May 20, 2014 by changed

[CV75]

...doesn't that suggest that sometimes their scripturally based doctrinal proclamations are not reliable?

No. It can only suggest unreliability for the rare teaching that has been disavowed (and that is far less than “sometimes”). It cannot conclude certain unreliabilitiy or predict Church error in its stance on every controversy du jour. In suggesting that the Church's positions on chastity and marriage are non-scriptural and uninspired with regards to homosexual and SS“M” practices, one should consider whether such practices were ever commanded or condoned by the Lord’s servants, ever. Concluding "no" has a far more solid basis in scripture than "yes" or "we don't know."

[Gray]

 

Divorce is horrible... 

 

 

But not currently treated as a sin, let alone a sexual sin like adultery. 

[CV75]

there isn't anything in there about commanding/approving of space exploration either, for the same reason as there is nothing in there about gay marriage. 

The reason for that is: neither has anyhting to do with making and keeping the essential eternal covenants. Morality-wise, science is neutral to our covenants, but gay "marriage" is an utter perversion of them.

[Gray]

The reason for that is: neither has anyhting to do with making and keeping the essential eternal covenants. Morality-wise, science is neutral to our covenants, but gay "marriage" is an utter perversion of them.

 

The reason neither are addressed is that both concepts are relatively new. Your opinion on what constitutes a "perversion" is something you have a right to, but also something many Latter-day Saints do not share. An increasing number of people of faith are awakening to the concept that gay people, including their committed relationships with their spouses or partners, have a place among those seeking greater oneness with God. 

[eddie]

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

 

 

Divorce is condemned by the church in most cases except adultery and abuse.

 

Those who say that we only look at traditional marriage in those verses, but ignore divorce should see the process it takes for a person to be sealed after going through divorce for cases not related to adultery and abuse.

[Gray]

Divorce is condemned by the church in most cases except adultery and abuse.

 

Those who say that we only look at traditional marriage in those verses, but ignore divorce should see the process it takes for a person to be sealed after going through divorce for cases not related to adultery and abuse.

 

Divorce is condemned if undertaken lightly, but not treated as a sin by the church.

 

Jesus taught that getting divorced and remarried commits adultery. We don't have trouble applying Paul's opinions when they affect gay people, but we've turned a blind eye toward Jesus' teaching about divorce - I guess because that would make life harder for straight people. It's just human nature. It's easier to identify with people who are similar to us, and so we can find more room for leniency and compassion than for people who are dissimilar to us. 

Edited May 20, 2014 by Gray

[canard78]

I hope you're not holding your breath waiting for a leader of our Lord's church to announce from Salt Lake City, Utah, that we're going to start sealing same sex couples.

It just ain't ever gonna happen.

 

I'm not holding my breath. I don't think I've ever claimed it will happen in our lifetime. For what it's worth, your reply had nothing to do with my comment you were replying to.

[canard78]

You really don't know how far off the mark you are, do you.

I do appreciate it when I see what others can't see but at the same time I wish there was some way I could just make you see what I see, as I see it, for at least a moment, even if you later reverted back to seeing things as you see them.

 

How nice to be in your spiritual tower where you can look down with satisfaction on all the ignorant people below you who "don't see things as you do."

 

Educate me. Why am I off the mark? Can you show me anything at all that would give me confidence that God instituted the priesthood ban. If you see things so clearly then perhaps you could show me why I'm so far off the mark, instead of making odd and vague comments about seeing it so much better than I do.

[changed]

But not currently treated as a sin, let alone a sexual sin like adultery. 

I think it is treated as a sin - you have to have interviews with the bishop, you cannot become a bishop etc. etc. it's treated very similarly to adultery.  

[Gray]

I think it is treated as a sin - you have to have interviews with the bishop, you cannot become a bishop etc. etc. it's treated very similarly to adultery.  

 

I don't think you have to have an interview with your bishop, although you can if you want. I know of a former bishop (now member of a stake presidency) who divorced right before he was called to be bishop (not for adultery). He remarried years later.

 

You don't have to stop taking the sacrament if you get divorced. You don't have to give up your temple recommend. You'll never be disfellowshipped or excommunicated .It's not treated like adultery at all. 

Edited May 20, 2014 by Gray