rockpond Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Renouncing or soft-pedaling divine law is not one of those things. That would, in fact, make the Church weaker in the divine scheme of things. I agree.
rockpond Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 While it may be cause for sadness or disappointment that some individuals would choose to leave or stay away because Church leaders uphold principle, it is not a cause for hand-wringing. Such a thing has been prophesied, in fact -- and illustrated in the parable of the sower and in Lehi's dream. As I said before, I am optimistic enough to believe the Church will grow and prosper without its leaders having to compromise on principle. I agree that we should never compromise on principles as long as they are correct and true.
rockpond Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 It's a separate issue in any case; no one has definitively established that God did not decree it. Nor has anyone definitively established that God *did* decree it. So if the ban was not put in place by God and was a result of mortal prejudice than it is not a separate issue. Since the Church's essays have admitted that the teachings about the ban were based in cultural racism of the time, I don't think we can absolutely rule that out as the possible reason for the ban.
rockpond Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 It is clear you believe President Young was saying no black person could ever be ordained to the priesthood until every other man ever to be born into mortality had been offered that privilege. Obviously, President Kimball did not believe that, or he would not by his own account have spent many hours in the Upper Room of the Salt Lake Temple praying for revelation. In my observation, it is those who want to rationalize the repeal of the law of chastity who try to use the Brigham Young quote to bolster their reasoning. Any conclusions we draw about what President Kimball believed or did not believe are purely speculative. Maybe he did believe Brigham Young but didn't know how to reconcile his statement with the need he felt to grant the priesthood to blacks. I'm not aware of anyone in the church asking for the law of chastity to be repealed. So I am not sure who you are referring to.
USU78 Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 I'm not aware of anyone who says that Dehlin or Toscano induced them to leave. I do know people who left because of issues that Dehlin discussed. But Dehlin didn't create those issues, he just explored them. And those issues along with how we explore them is of high importance to me which I why I often discuss them on these boards. He "explored" them on a monetized advocacy website which sought and seeks to induce members to leave. Let's call that there spade a shovel. Toscano did much the same, given the technology of the time.
USU78 Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Any conclusions we draw about what President Kimball believed or did not believe are purely speculative. Maybe he did believe Brigham Young but didn't know how to reconcile his statement with the need he felt to grant the priesthood to blacks. I'm not aware of anyone in the church asking for the law of chastity to be repealed. So I am not sure who you are referring to. Let's not be coy. Normalized homosexuality in the Church and SSM in the church are very definitely being advocated. Both would be a repeal of the law of chastity. 4
Scott Lloyd Posted February 17, 2015 Author Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) Any conclusions we draw about what President Kimball believed or did not believe are purely speculative. Maybe he did believe Brigham Young but didn't know how to reconcile his statement with the need he felt to grant the priesthood to blacks.Or maybe he was like many of us -- scratching his head and trying to make sense of what Brigham said, ultimately deciding, as I have done, that when he sees Brother Brigham in the hereafter, he will ask him. I'm not aware of anyone in the church asking for the law of chastity to be repealed. So I am not sure who you are referring to.USU78 just explained it very clearly and concisely. Edited February 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
rockpond Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Let's not be coy. Normalized homosexuality in the Church and SSM in the church are very definitely being advocated. Both would be a repeal of the law of chastity. I understand why you see it as a repeal of the law of chastity, but I don't see it that way. The law of chastity is no sexual relations outside of marriage. I certainly don't think we should give up that standard. I do think that we should recognize marriage for gay couples within the framework of that law so that they too can marry and enjoy the blessings of being in the church.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Any conclusions we draw about what President Kimball believed or did not believe are purely speculative. Maybe he did believe Brigham Young but didn't know how to reconcile his statement with the need he felt to grant the priesthood to blacks. I'm not aware of anyone in the church asking for the law of chastity to be repealed. So I am not sure who you are referring to.You your self feel that it should be changed e,g, gay marriage will be in the temple, that is essentially repealing it and replacing it with something else. 1
rockpond Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Or maybe he was like many of us -- scratching his head and trying to make sense of what Brigham said, ultimately deciding, as I have done, that when he sees Brother Brigham in the hereafter, he will ask him. Definitely possible.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) I understand why you see it as a repeal of the law of chastity, but I don't see it that way. The law of chastity is no sexual relations outside of marriage. I certainly don't think we should give up that standard. I do think that we should recognize marriage for gay couples within the framework of that law so that they too can marry and enjoy the blessings of being in the church.Um, it is more than just no sex out side of marriage. It also includes any homosexual behavior. Those 2 positions are not able to be reconciled. I guess, if like you, we just ignore it then sure. But that is just not being honest with your self. Edited February 17, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Scott Lloyd Posted February 17, 2015 Author Posted February 17, 2015 I understand why you see it as a repeal of the law of chastity, but I don't see it that way. The law of chastity is no sexual relations outside of marriage. I certainly don't think we should give up that standard. I do think that we should recognize marriage for gay couples within the framework of that law so that they too can marry and enjoy the blessings of being in the church.Again, I would refer you to the Elder Nelson quote in my sig line. Calling it "marriage" doe not make it marriage in the eyes of God, and engaging in sexual relations under such a sham does not shield one from the law of chastity. 4
rockpond Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 He "explored" them on a monetized advocacy website which sought and seeks to induce members to leave. Let's call that there spade a shovel. Toscano did much the same, given the technology of the time. The mission of Mormon Stories is not to induce members to leave. I readily admit that some of the material covered there is at the heart of why people leave but those are issues that exist independent of Dehlin. The fact that Dehlin told listeners he could only continue the podcasts with financial support, after being asked to continue, doesn't mean he was trying to induce people to leave. He was still an active member. Being paid for work doesn't discredit someone unless you are willing to say that about everyone, including our own church leaders.
rockpond Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Um, it is more than just no sex out side of marriage. It also includes any homosexual behavior. Those 2 positions are not able to be reconciled. I guess, if like you, we just ignore it then sure. But that is just not being honest with your self. The law of chastity as defined in the temple only references one's legally and lawfully wedded spouse. There is no mention of genders.
USU78 Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 The mission of Mormon Stories is not to induce members to leave. I used to be that naive, too. 1
rockpond Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Again, I would refer you to the Elder Nelson quote in my sig line. Calling it "marriage" doe not make it marriage in the eyes of God, and engaging in sexual relations under such a sham does not shield one from the law of chastity. Scott, we've been round and round through this before... I agree: current U.S. law does not affect God. Also, claiming that we know God's will (regarding marriage for his gay sons and daughters) does not mean that He has yet revealed it to us.
rockpond Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 I used to be that naive, too. It's not naivete. Here is the mission statement of Mormon Stories: http://mormonstories.org/about/ And what I've listened to on MS over the years has supported that mission statement. I suspect that what you're actually upset about is that MS has helped bring attention to some of the messier issues in our doctrine and history. It seems to be those issues that often are a catalyst for people leaving the church.
rongo Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) The law of chastity as defined in the temple only references one's legally and lawfully wedded spouse. There is no mention of genders.That's because at the time it was written, it was a no-brainer and a given that it only referred to men and women. Developments over the past decades necessitated the language in the Proclamation. I have to admit that I am nonplussed at the claim that the wording in the temple somehow provides a loophole by which homosexual activity can be made to be compliant with the law of chastity if it occurs in a legalized marriage. I would bet that this language will be updated (in favor of the Proclamation's verbiage) in the temple instructions, if/when the SCOTUS mandates legalized SSM nationwide (as I expect it to). Edited February 18, 2015 by rongo 2
rockpond Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 I would bet that this language will be updated (in favor of the Proclamation's verbiage) in the temple instructions, if/when the SCOTUS mandates legalized SSM nationwide (as I expect it to). I don't know... I was honestly surprised that that particular change wasn't incorporated into the new temple films that were recently released. Prior to that I was expecting that change in verbiage.
carbon dioxide Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 The law of chastity as defined in the temple only references one's legally and lawfully wedded spouse. There is no mention of genders.You are really reaching on that one. I can say it does not mention species either. I have a female dog. Perhaps I can marry my dog and she can be my spouse?
carbon dioxide Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 I understand why you see it as a repeal of the law of chastity, but I don't see it that way. The law of chastity is no sexual relations outside of marriage. I certainly don't think we should give up that standard. I do think that we should recognize marriage for gay couples within the framework of that law so that they too can marry and enjoy the blessings of being in the church.Marriage according to the scriptures is always male/female relationships whether monogamy or polygamy. You deceive yourself if it can mean anything differently. 2
JLHPROF Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 The law of chastity as defined in the temple only references one's legally and lawfully wedded spouse. There is no mention of genders. That's because at the time it was written, it was a no-brainer and a given that it only referred to men and women. At the time it was written the Church was living plural marriage which was neither legal nor lawful.The idea that "legally and lawfully" has anything to do with civil marriage doesn't hold up historically. It refers to priesthood law.
mfbukowski Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Part two of my perdition is that ....Oh gosh, I hope not. 1
rongo Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 I don't know... I was honestly surprised that that particular change wasn't incorporated into the new temple films that were recently released. Prior to that I was expecting that change in verbiage.It isn't [yet] necessary. When it becomes necessary, then it will be changed. That's one of the purposes and reasons why the Proclamation was issued in 1995.
rockpond Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Marriage according to the scriptures is always male/female relationships whether monogamy or polygamy. Yeah... there's so much in the scriptures about marriage. You deceive yourself if it can mean anything differently. First time I've heard that. Oh wait... no, it's not.
Recommended Posts