The Purpose Of Marriage?

[WysteriaBlue]

I think if you read or listened to them, you would find that holding the priesthood keys and the balance that entails to be a meek and worthy priesthood holder and leades of the faith differs greatly from other married couples.

Just my opinion of the ones I know that are truly worthy...

wb

[california boy]

I think if you read or listened to them, you would find that holding the priesthood keys and the balance that entails to be a meek and worthy priesthood holder and leades of the faith differs greatly from other married couples.

Just my opinion of the ones I know that are truly worthy...

wb

 

 

You are probably right. Other married couples are not truely worthy of marriage.  I don't even know why they bother getting married.  Maybe those couples should be forced to live together without being legally married just like the church does to "the gays".  Let's pass a law in Utah that only Mormons can marry since you don't know any other couples that are truely worthy of marriage.  I am sure you could probably get a majority in Utah to exercise their voting rights to impose their religious views on others and not just the gays.  And hey, if the majority of citizens vote something in, well then it is legal right?  

[WysteriaBlue]

You are probably right. Other married couples are not truely worthy of marriage.  I don't even know why they bother getting married.  Maybe those couples should be forced to live together without being legally married just like the church does to "the gays".  Let's pass a law in Utah that only Mormons can marry since you don't know any other couples that are truely worthy of marriage.  I am sure you could probably get a majority in Utah to exercise their voting rights to impose their religious views on others and not just the gays.  And hey, if the majority of citizens vote something in, well then it is legal right?

Unfortunately, CB, I do feel like the church's expectations on their priests and the powers that they bestow on them must be tempered by more temperence, patience and balance than perhaps in other faiths and hopefully they will also learn that balance in marriage...the chances for abuse of these powers of the priesthood could easily be abused both in marriage and their callings..

I do feel like all marriages should be a partnership and a loving and giving one indeed.

I do feel that SSM deserve legitamization, but I just can't foresee it in terms of LDS temple marriages.

I know of many loving and fulfilled SSMarriages that are very worthy of being sanctified. You do not have an enemy or detractor in me...

I'm sorry you interpreted it that way. Ps..I don't live in UT either...

[california boy]

Unfortunately, CB, I do feel like the church's expectations on their priests and the powers that they bestow on them must be tempered by more temperence, patience and balance than perhaps in other faiths and hopefully they will also learn that balance in marriage...the chances for abuse of these powers of the priesthood could easily be abused both in marriage and their callings..

I do feel like all marriages should be a partnership and a loving and giving one indeed.

I do feel that SSM deserve legitamization, but I just can't foresee it in terms of LDS temple marriages.

I know of many loving and fulfilled SSMarriages that are very worthy of being sanctified. You do not have an enemy or detractor in me...

I'm sorry you interpreted it that way. Ps..I don't live in UT either...

Your clarification is very helpful.  Your first post on this seemed quite unreasonable on a thread about gay marriage not being a real marriage.  While the church certainly ties marriage closely to the priesthood, I think you would agree that it does not consider their view of marriage as being the only view of marriage that is valid here on earth.  I think it is dangerous for members to suggest that.  Perhaps that was not your intent, but I certainly read it that way.  That is all I am saying.  

Edited October 16, 2014 by california boy

[Rob Osborn]

Marriage is defned only between man and woman. Gay couples are just always that- gay couples. They really are never married because they do not fit the definition.

[Senator]

So, you created a thread to inform everyone that you will not be using the term "marriage" for gay marriages.

 

Um.

 

Ok.

[sethpayne]

Perhaps it can, but romantic love is not a requisite for marriage.  God never required nor commanded it.

However he did require that a man love his wife.  Clearly God can see a difference between loving someone and being in love with someone.

 

And the scriptures are full of examples of both...

 

Yeah.  The whole "cleave to her and none else" doesn't imply romantic love at all.  Good grief.

[sethpayne]

Marriage is defned only between man and woman. Gay couples are just always that- gay couples. They really are never married because they do not fit the definition.

 

Can you provide a reference for this objective definition?

 

Or is this a case where you are picking a preferred definition based on other factors?  In other words, I am hoping you can cite a source for this universal objective definition that all reasonable people would agree upon.

[mormonnewb]

So, you created a thread to inform everyone that you will not be using the term "marriage" for gay marriages.

 

Um.

 

Ok.

 

No, he created the thread to once again express his view that he finds gay sex to be "icky" and that God does too (and that the state would too if it weren't for Barack Obama).  And it's a good thing that he did because I was beginning to think that he had changed his mind since yesterday.     

[VideoGameJunkie]

My wife will probably grow bored with me cheat on me and divorce me. Divorce is a big problem as is cheating.

[teddyaware]

No, he created the thread to once again express his view that he finds gay sex to be "icky" and that God does too (and that the state would too if it weren't for Barack Obama).  And it's a good thing that he did because I was beginning to think that he had changed his mind since yesterday.  

Do you as a Latter-day Saint believe God finds any sexual practices "icky?" If so, of which of the following practices do you believe God disapproves?

1) adultery?

2) fornication?

3) adult viewing of adult pornography?

4) voluntary adult prostitution?

5) consenting adults participating in the making of pornography?

6) the so-called 'dancing' performed in "men's clubs?"

7) consenting adult involvement in group participation?

There are more practices that could be added to the list, but for our purposes items 1 through 7 should suffice. I ask for your participation on answering the above questionnaire because you seem to mock the idea that God would find specific sexual practices unholy and destructive.

P.S. I did not include rape, incest and child abuse on the list because virtually all believers already agree these things are abominations in the sight of God.

Edited October 16, 2014 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

My wife will probably grow bored with me cheat on me and divorce me. Divorce is a big problem as is cheating.

Never beat yourself up. There are plenty of people who will do that for you.

If you actually are a video game addict though I recommend paring it back to an occasional hobby or quitting if the former is impossible. It will help.

[mormonnewb]

Do you as a Latter-day Saint believe God finds any sexual practices "icky?" If so, of which of the following practices do you believe God disapproves?

1) adultery?

2) fornication?

3) adult viewing of adult pornography?

4) voluntary adult prostitution?

5) consenting adults participating in the making of pornography?

6) the so-called 'dancing' performed in "men's clubs?"

7) consenting adult involvement in group participation?

There are more practices that could be added to the list, but for our purposes items 1 through 7 should suffice. I ask for your participation on answering the above questionnaire because you seem to mock the idea that God would find specific sexual practices unholy and destructive.

P.S. I did not include rape, incest and child abuse on the list because virtually all believers already agree these things are abominations in the sight of God.

I strongly suspect that HF isn't as queasy about 1-7 as we might imagine. That being said, I believe that ALL of them "grieve" HF, in the sense that each will keep us from truly enjoying sex in the context in which it is most satisfying -- in a committed, monogamous relationship.

However, to the extent that others don't ascribe to my viewpoint, I respect their RIGHT to exercise their agency (at least with respect to 2-7). More importantly, I don't wish to have the state determine their status to receive inheritances, tax benefits or other civil benefits based on their sexual activities.

Because if I were to begin to categorize relationships based on their "value," sexual activities would be among the most insignificant of the markers. For instance, I think the man who verbally abuses his wife causes greater harm to her (and the children raised in this environment) than the husband who watches adult PPV in his Marriott hotel room.

Yet, in NEITHER instance, do I think that the state should establish different levels of benefits to show its approval/disapproval of the relationships.

Edited October 16, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Ahab]

I think it's helpful to distinguish between marriage and a marriage ceremony, also known as a wedding. Marriage is the act of 2 people coming together as one, the physical and sexual union. A marriage ceremony, or wedding, is an event that puts a legalistic sealing of approval on a marriage, as if to say yes it's okay for these 2 people to come together in a physical and sexual union.

LDS are typically opposed to both marriage and a legalistic seal of approval for same sex "couples", and if the world objects to our opposition of what we believe to be unrighteous they should learn to live their own lives with no expectation that we, as a body, will ever agree with them on this issue.

After all, we're just saying we don't approve of it.

They can of course physically do things that we do not approve of, unless or until God puts a stop to it.

Voted again and again the best post in this thread, by me.

Siskel and Ebert both give it two thumbs up, and 5 shiny gold stars.

Vanity Fair says: Clearly the most articulate and well thought out explanation for why LDS are opposed to same sex marriage. Everyone should read it again and again.

[teddyaware]

I strongly suspect that HF isn't as queasy about 1-7 as we might imagine. That being said, I believe that ALL of them "grieve" HF, in the sense that each will keep us from truly enjoying sex in the context in which it is most satisfying -- in a committed, monogamous relationship.

However, to the extent that others don't ascribe to my viewpoint, I respect their RIGHT to exercise their agency (at least with respect to 2-7). More importantly, I don't wish to have the state determine their status to receive inheritances, tax benefits or other civil benefits based on their sexual activities.

Because if I were to begin to categorize relationships based on their "value," sexual activities would be among the most insignificant of the markers. For instance, I think the man who verbally abuses his wife causes greater harm to her (and the children raised in this environment) than the husband who watches adult PPV in his Marriott hotel room.

Yet, in NEITHER instance, do I think that the state should establish different levels of benefits to show its approval/disapproval of the relationships.

Of course you do realize I used the word 'icky' in relation to the Lord's attitudes toward sinful sexual practices as a note of mild  sarcasm. It would have been more to the point if I had substituted icky with 'oppose.' 'reject' or 'condemn.'

This forum being a Mormon discussion board, I'm not nearly as focused on the societal rights modern people have to commit sexual sin as I am with its destructive spiritual and eternal consequences. 

 

I find it interesting and par for the course that in your response you suppose the main reason why God disapproves of sexual sin is that it "will keep us from truly enjoying sex in the context in which it is most satisfying," rather than asserting He condemns it is because it destroys marriages, families, civilizations and souls. I would imagine decreased sexual pleasure is somewhere down near the bottom of God's list of reasons why He disapproves of sexual sin.

But I suppose in today's "enlightened," politically correct, anything goes world it's a bit embarrassing to come out and forthrightly condemn sexual sin as the destructive plague it is. After all, what modern liberally-minded person wants to come off sounding even remotely like one of those 'ignorant' fire and brimstone prophets? The potential ostracism and humiliation of it all are just too much to ask any reasonable person to bear.

28 And after they had tasted of the fruit they were ashamed, because of those that were scoffing at them; and they fell away into forbidden paths and were lost. (1 Nephi 8:28)

Edited October 16, 2014 by teddyaware

[california boy]

Of course you do realize I used the word 'icky' in relation to the Lord's attitudes toward sinful sexual practices as a note of mild  sarcasm. It would have been more to the point if I had substituted icky with 'oppose.' 'reject' or 'condemn.'

This forum being a Mormon discussion board, I'm not nearly as focused on the societal rights modern people have to commit sexual sin as I am with its destructive spiritual and eternal consequences. 

 

I find it interesting and par for the course that in your response you suppose the main reason why God disapproves of sexual sin is that it "will keep us from truly enjoying sex in the context in which it is most satisfying," rather than asserting He condemns it is because it destroys marriages, families, civilizations and souls. I would imagine decreased sexual pleasure is somewhere down near the bottom of God's list of reasons why He disapproves of sexual sin.

But I suppose in today's "enlightened," politically correct, anything goes world it's a bit embarrassing to come out and forthrightly condemn sexual sin as the destructive plague it is. After all, what modern liberally-minded person wants to come off sounding even remotely like one of those 'ignorant' fire and brimstone prophets? The potential ostracism and humiliation of it all are just too much to ask any reasonable person to bear.

28 And after they had tasted of the fruit they were ashamed, because of those that were scoffing at them; and they fell away into forbidden paths and were lost. (1 Nephi 8:28)

Of course you are right, but when we talk about sexual sins on this board, we keep it to homosexual sin.  Other sexual sins are not really allowed.  Have you not been paying attention to the threads that are constantly started?  When is the last time a thread was started about sexual heterosexual sin??  It is way more fun standing on our ivory towers and throwing rocks at "the gays".  After all, it is gay marriage that is going to cause the end of civilization, not any heterosexual sins.  God tolerates those.  But the second coming will happen any moment now that gay marriage is legal.

[JLHPROF]

Yeah.  The whole "cleave to her and none else" doesn't imply romantic love at all.  Good grief.

 

 

 

Nope.  No "romance" at all.  The exact same word is used to define the hold evil has on us and the relationship we have with God.

Scripturally, there is no eternal precedent for what we call romantic love, and certainly none that would show God requires it in a marriage.

 

 

 

 

Cleave - To Join

The Biblical word cleave in the sense of join is an extremely eclectic term being a rendering of seven Hebrew, one Aramaic and three Greek words. Fortunately three of these words are closely related and form the majority of the instances of 'cleave' found in the Old Testament. The words are dâbaq (H1692), debaq(H1693) and dâbêq(H1695). The latter two are rare: debaq occurs once and is the Aramaic equivalent of dâbaq. dâbêq occurs twice and is the adjective form of the root dâbaq.

 

 

The meaning of dâbaq is given by both Strong and BDB as 'to cling or stick to'. It can also mean 'to be joined together' (Pual) or to pursue closely (Hiphil). Of the 60 occurrences in the Bible 35 of them are rendered 'cleave' or a derivative. Other renderings are: followed(9), keep(4), overtook(3), joined(2) and an assortment of individual renderings. The first use of dâbaq is in Gen 2:24 and speaks of the union of man and woman. The word is also used of sickness or evil's grip and of the relationship we should have to God.

[Analytics]

...Given that marriage consist of a formal, binding, and longstanding commitment between couples and on behalf of their potential offspring, the fundamental purpose of marriage in the eyes of the law and God, is to legitimize sex and the product resulting therefrom. Simple as that.

 

By "legitimize" I mean authoritatively recognize, approve, and encourage (and in the eyes of God, make holy). 

 

The state and God very much have a vested interest in promoting legitimate sex between men and women and discouraging illegitimate sex between the same....

 

 

So that I can better understand the real purpose of marriage, I propose we look at Joseph Smith’s second marriage as a case study.

 

According to a recent article published in Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture by Brian C. Hales and Gregory L. Smith, Joseph Smith was married to Fanny Alger.  This marriage had the following characteristics:

 

1. There was a marriage ceremony.

    

2. Joseph Smith entered the marriage because he loved Fanny and wanted to marry her (according to Hales and Smith, Joseph asked Levi Hancock to arrange the marriage.  He said, “Fanny Brother Joseph the Prophet loves you and wishes you for a wife will you be his wife.”)

    

3. The marriage was secret.  No record of the marriage was made by the state, the Church, or even Joseph Smith’s personal records.  Not even Joseph’s first wife Emma was told about the marriage.

    

4. When Joseph’s first wife Emma found out that Joseph was secretly married to Fanny, Fanny left town and then married a non-Mormon (there is no record of her getting divorced from her first husband Joseph). 

    

5. All of this happened before Joseph received the keys to “seal” people on 3 April 1836.

    

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-response-to-grant-palmers-sexual-allegations-against-joseph-smith-and-the-beginnings-of-polygamy-in-nauvoo/#comment-14972

 

So that I can better understand the “purpose behind marriage in the eyes of the law (or God),” could you explain how the secret marriage between Joseph and Fanny created a formal, binding, and longstanding commitment between the couple on behalf of their potential offspring and was authoritatively recognized, approved, encouraged, and made holy?

Edited October 16, 2014 by Analytics

[thesometimesaint]

I have. It is about citizen rights and equal protection. It makes no mention of marriage, nor does it address the legal definition of marriage, let alone the purpose of marriage, as I so indicated.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

The USSC disagrees with you.

[teddyaware]

Of course you are right, but when we talk about sexual sins on this board, we keep it to homosexual sin.  Other sexual sins are not really allowed.  Have you not been paying attention to the threads that are constantly started?  When is the last time a thread was started about sexual heterosexual sin??  It is way more fun standing on our ivory towers and throwing rocks at "the gays".  After all, it is gay marriage that is going to cause the end of civilization, not any heterosexual sins.  God tolerates those.  But the second coming will happen any moment now that gay marriage is legal.

You will notice the list of sexual practices I presented to newb in my previous post (#61) had no specific reference to homosexual sexual practices.

I believe the reason why heterosexual sins are rarely discussed on this board is because it's taken for granted by all active Church members that these practices are sinful. Meanwhile, there is currently a powerful societal movement to normalize gay sexual practices and declare these practices are not sinful. So what we have here is a classic apples to oranges comparison. Very few, if any, Church members are attempting to claim unlawful heterosexual practices are not sinful. But now there are, in fact, some active Church members who are hoping to have homosexual sex within gay marriage declared as not sinful.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 Very few, if any, Church members are attempting to claim unlawful heterosexual practices are not sinful. But now there are, in fact, some active Church members who are hoping to have homosexual sex within gay marriage declared as not sinful.

There is no X factor that will make homosexual activities not a sin for the very same reason that there is no X factor that will ever make adultery, fornication, or prostitution  not a sin.  Sin is sin and no amount of redefinition, or wishful thinking with change it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The USSC disagrees with you.

That is so deep Saint. Why don't you actually try to engage in the debate with something of substance?

 

Not everything that USSC is good.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Rob Osborn]

What bothers me is that I am more likely to be censored for condemning homosexuality versus accepting it and promoting it. You know what though? It doesnt matter, I will stand for what is right and continue to condemn homosexuality for the sexual perversion that it truly is.

[sethpayne]

What bothers me is that I am more likely to be censored for condemning homosexuality versus accepting it and promoting it. You know what though? It doesnt matter, I will stand for what is right and continue to condemn homosexuality for the sexual perversion that it truly is.

 

Kind of like people used to speak about interracial marriage being "unnatural."

[JLHPROF]

So that I can better understand the “purpose behind marriage in the eyes of the law (or God),” could you explain how the secret marriage between Joseph and Fanny created a formal, binding, and longstanding commitment between the couple on behalf of their potential offspring and was authoritatively recognized, approved, encouraged, and made holy?

 

You are basing this on the assumption that Joseph had sufficient light and knowledge of "God's purpose in marriage" at the time he wed Fanny Alger.  As you yourself pointed out, he was unfamiliar with the concept of eternal marriage and sealing at the time he married her.

 

The Church in early Kirtland was very much a New England protestant Church, with many of their cultural beliefs where revelation had not yet been received.  When Joseph married Fanny he was aware of the truth of the doctrine of plural marriage from his translation of the Bible, but he was not yet aware of the conditions under which plural marriage were to be solemnized.  So in his lack of understanding, he took her in marriage, probably as a common-law wife.

 

At the time of his marriage to Fanny, NO marriages were "authoritatively recognized, approved, encouraged, and made holy".

God didn't introduce his law of marriage until later, at which time marriages were resolemnized for eternity where possible and desirable.  And many saints chose to leave their mortal spouses for different eternal ones.