Tacenda Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) Do you really think shunning and teaching can change behavior to a point of eradicating it? That's completely naive to me. It would just drive the behavior underground or in the shadows.I can't link it, but listened to a YouTube message called "Terrible Texts of the Bible" June 2004, Burke Lecture: John Shelby Spong. It ties in nicely since it's all about how some texts in the Bible are terrible and wrong, and he's a man of the cloth saying it! I'd recommend anyone to check it out. Edited April 13, 2015 by Tacenda
teddyaware Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) You're link is not to book I cited (your link is to the "Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith"). My reference is from the Teachings of the Presidents series that have served as our PH/RS manuals. The quote is at the end of Chapter 16 (if you're looking at an electronic version without page numbers) and it is footnoted to History of the Church 5:256-57. But, yes, you can find scriptures in the Bible that provide different reasons for Sodom & Gomorrah being destroyed. There are also multiple reasons provided by our past prophets and apostles. And, of course, Biblical scholars disagree. There's a lot of confusion and it seems that many want to pin whatever sin they most decry on S&G just as many do the same with the fall of Rome. So I think it's inappropriate for any of us to state as fact a specific reason for S&G's destruction... I tend to like the Prophet Joseph's reason because it's more of a catch all. Saying that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they rejected the prophets is an ill-informed oversimplification. The reason why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed is because they were extremely wicked cities that were ripening in iniquity with sexual perversion being foremost among their transgressions. Seeing they were almost fully ripened in iniquity, God sent prophets to warn the wicked inhabitants of these cities THAT IF THEY DID NOT REPENT OF THEIR EVIL WAYS (primarily sexual perversion) HE WOULD UTTERLY DESTROY THEM. So it was the over-the-top SINFULNESS of Sodom and Gomorrah that caused the Lord to send prophets to warn them of God's impending, already-decreed destruction if they would not repent. Sadly, not only did these people not repent of their sins but they further sinned by mistreating, abusing and perhaps even murdering the prophets who were sent to warn them. So Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were already evil and would not repent when that merciful option was offered to them by divine messengers. Please note they were not destroyed because they were otherwise good people who simply would not give prophets a warm welcome. The Apostle Jude specifically indicates what these people were doing that motivated the Lord to send prophets to forewarn them of destruction if they would not repent. 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (Jude 1) Terrible misuse of the most sacred "fountain of life" and the refusal to repent of such gross wickedness, when called upon to do so by God's authorized servants, is the reason why Sodom, Gomorrah and the other cities round about were wiped off the face of the earth. Edited April 13, 2015 by teddyaware
california boy Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 Gay marriage legalizaAt that point we are no longer free to do God's will. You want your immorality, you can have it, just dont impose it upon the rest of us in society who want morals. I understand that you believe that gay marriage is against God's will. But no one is forcing you to have a gay marriage. There is a lot of immorality in the world. Members are suppose to be in the world but not of it. Gay marriage is no different than any of the other sins. You are not expected or required to participate. No freedoms will be taken away from you when gay marriage is legalized. Once again, this is your original quoteGay marriage, if allowed, will be one great hit on American and worldwide freedom, a truly sad horrific day. Making gay marriage out to be some "ultimate sin" is just not part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is not even a sin that you or 97% of the population of this country will even be tempted to partake of. Adultery, fornication, and divorce, are all legal in this country. These are moral sins that effect the majority of people. I hardly think the wrath of God is going to be released upon this nation over a sin that so very few people are even tempted to participate in when adultery, fornication and divorce are ramped in this country. The thing that will take away your freedom are your own sins. The horrific day you speak of is the day that you yourself commit a grievous sin. Forcing on the sins of others does not lead to your own salvation. Only guarding yourself from the sins you are tempted to commit will. This is the gospel Christ taught. 2
ksfisher Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 The thing that will take away your freedom are your own sins. The horrific day you speak of is the day that you yourself commit a grievous sin. Forcing on the sins of others does not lead to your own salvation. Only guarding yourself from the sins you are tempted to commit will. This is the gospel Christ taught. I agree with you that the most damaging sins to any individual are the ones that they are tempted by. However, I wonder if you are not minimizing the power of one persons example to effect the lives of others, both for good and ill. The scriptures are full of examples of how powerful the example of one person can be on a people or nation. 1
Daniel2 Posted April 13, 2015 Author Posted April 13, 2015 Can I once again ask that we please stay in topic in this thread? The reason Sodom and Gammorah was destroyed is an interesting tangent that could be discussed in another thread, but isn't on topic here. Thanks.
tonie Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) Apart from not addressing the 14th Amendment, the brief filed by the religious groups is disappointing for the reason offerred is essentially that those who oppose ssm will be deemed as bigots; and therefore their opinions viewed less favorably. It is a clever argument, but not an argument upon which the Justices should base their ruling. If an opinion becomes unpopular after the Court of Last Resort deems the legislative enactments unConstitutional, then I say so be it. The result of legal proceeding is that oen party had, what could be described as, the least popular opinion. However, that one groups opinion are less popular is not reason to deny a 3rd party rights. To declare an unprecedented constitutional right to same sex marriage would deny people of faith who support traditional marriage the liberty to participate as equal citizens in deciding which values and policies will govern their communities. We urge the Court to trust the people and their democratic institutions to resolve the marriage issue, as it has on other divisive issues so many times. Another clever argument, but a baseless reason to continue the status quo of disenfranchising a group of citizens under the 14th Amendment. The phrase same sex marriage, could be easily replaced with "interracial marriage". Edited April 13, 2015 by tonie
Danzo Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 The phrase same sex marriage, could be easily replaced with "interracial marriage". Why?
rockpond Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 Saying that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they rejected the prophets is an ill-informed oversimplification. The reason why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed is because they were extremely wicked cities that were ripening in iniquity with sexual perversion being foremost among their transgressions. Seeing they were almost fully ripened in iniquity, God sent prophets to warn the wicked inhabitants of these cities THAT IF THEY DID NOT REPENT OF THEIR EVIL WAYS (primarily sexual perversion) HE WOULD UTTERLY DESTROY THEM. So it was the over-the-top SINFULNESS of Sodom and Gomorrah that caused the Lord to send prophets to warn them of God's impending, already-decreed destruction if they would not repent. Sadly, not only did these people not repent of their sins but they further sinned by mistreating, abusing and perhaps even murdering the prophets who were sent to warn them. So Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were already evil and would not repent when that merciful option was offered to them by divine messengers. Please note they were not destroyed because they were otherwise good people who simply would not give prophets a warm welcome. The Apostle Jude specifically indicates what these people were doing that motivated the Lord to send prophets to forewarn them of destruction if they would not repent. 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (Jude 1) Terrible misuse of the most sacred "fountain of life" and the refusal to repent of such gross wickedness, when called upon to do so by God's authorized servants, is the reason why Sodom, Gomorrah and the other cities round about were wiped off the face of the earth. Interesting. Surprised to hear you call a statement by the Prophet Joseph an "ill-informed oversimplification". As I said, "rejecting the prophets" is somewhat of a catch all. Saying that S&G were destroyed because of "homosexuality" is definitely an oversimplification. But I won't dig deeper here because it's a derail of Daniel's thread.
thesometimesaint Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 Why? Because virtually the same arguments were use by the state of Virginia in Loving v Virginia.SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia 1
rockpond Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 I'm curious... does anyone here think that SCOTUS is going to rule against legal recognition of gay marriage? Regardless of whether you think that decision is right or wrong. I feel like the Brethren have decided that SCOTUS will rule in favor of gay marriage and that's why they moved forward with the UT legislation earlier this year.
Buckeye Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 I'm curious... does anyone here think that SCOTUS is going to rule against legal recognition of gay marriage? Regardless of whether you think that decision is right or wrong. I feel like the Brethren have decided that SCOTUS will rule in favor of gay marriage and that's why they moved forward with the UT legislation earlier this year. There's always danger in assuming a 5-4 outcome will go a certain way, even when all the legal minds seem to agree. But I can't imagine the majority ruling in favor of states-rights when they previously denied cert from so many states seeking just that, on the grounds that - at the time - there was not a split among circuit courts. Allowing Ohio citizens to define marriage as opposite-sex only, but not allowing Utah the same right, would not be workable. And allowing Utah and all the other states who's definitions were overtuned by federal courts to go back and retroactively cancel SSM licenses would be equally unworkable. Could you really imagine? No, there is only one course to avoid chaos here: SSM is a constitutional right. If you need more evidence of the inevitability of this decision, just look at the fact that no major law firm is willing to defend the state laws: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/us/the-case-against-gay-marriage-top-law-firms-wont-touch-it.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0
Scott Lloyd Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) I'm curious... does anyone here think that SCOTUS is going to rule against legal recognition of gay marriage? Regardless of whether you think that decision is right or wrong. I feel like the Brethren have decided that SCOTUS will rule in favor of gay marriage and that's why they moved forward with the UT legislation earlier this year.So you're saying that mere uncertainty about which way the decision would go would not be reason enough for them to move forward with supporting the legislation? That they wouldn't have been in favor in any case of guaranteeing access to basic survival needs such as housing and employment? That they wouldn't have been prudent enough to want to safeguard religious liberty in any case? The conclusion you draw here strikes me as unsound. Bear in mind that the Utah legislation as it pertains to GLBT is consistent in concept with a Salt Lake City ordinance the Church also supported a couple of years ago, before this present SCOTUS case was in the public consciousness. Edited April 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Gray Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 I don't think they'll have any real choice but to rule in favor of gay marriage. There isn't really any kind of valid legal case to be made against it.
tonie Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 The phrase same sex marriage, could be easily replaced with "interracial marriage". Why? From the local trial judge who suspended the sentence of the Lovings (White man/Black woman), if they would move out of Virginia: Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he [Almighty God] separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
tonie Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 I'm curious... does anyone here think that SCOTUS is going to rule against legal recognition of gay marriage? Regardless of whether you think that decision is right or wrong. I feel like the Brethren have decided that SCOTUS will rule in favor of gay marriage and that's why they moved forward with the UT legislation earlier this year. I do not think SCOTUS will uphold the prohibitions. My prediction is that if ssm is deemed legal, then amending the Civils Rights Act to cover sexual orientation or gender identity will shortly follow.
rockpond Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 So you're saying that mere uncertainty about which way the decision would go would not be reason enough for them to move forward with supporting the legislation? That they wouldn't have been in favor in any case of guaranteeing access to basic survival needs such as housing and employment? That they wouldn't have been prudent enough to want to safeguard religious liberty in any case? The conclusion you draw here strikes me as unsound. Bear in mind that the Utah legislation as it pertains to GLBT is consistent in concept with a Salt Lake City ordinance the Church also supported a couple of years ago, before this present SCOTUS case was in the public consciousness. Well, the Church was opposed to a similar ordinance in my home state of Colorado back in the 90's. I think the timing of the recent Utah legislation is what led me to that conclusion. But you are right... it could just be uncertainty about which way it will go as opposed to feeling that it will go in support of gay marriage.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 Well, the Church was opposed to a similar ordinance in my home state of Colorado back in the 90's.I wonder if they may have been opposed because of the potential for the similar ordinance to have done violence to religious liberty and freedom of conscience. But being unacquainted with the ordinance, I'm not prepared to argue that with you. I think the timing of the recent Utah legislation is what led me to that conclusion. But you are right... it could just be uncertainty about which way it will go as opposed to feeling that it will go in support of gay marriage. Regardless of which way the SCOTUS decision goes, supporting the Utah legislation just makes sense from a wise-as-serpents-yet-harmless-as-doves perspective.
teddyaware Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) Interesting. Surprised to hear you call a statement by the Prophet Joseph an "ill-informed oversimplification". As I said, "rejecting the prophets" is somewhat of a catch all. Saying that S&G were destroyed because of "homosexuality" is definitely an oversimplification. But I won't dig deeper here because it's a derail of Daniel's thread. In deference to Daniel, this will be my last post on this thread... Except for a line or two, I'm wondering if you read my post. Rejection of the prophets can only occur when the prophetic warning message the prophets preach is rejected. One cannot reject the prophets without rejecting the prophet's warning messages to repent of specific sinful behaviors because that's the reason why the prophets are sent in the first place. Prophets are not sent unless there is a need to command people in the name of the Lord to repent, and the Apostle Jude said the foremost sins of the cities in question were "fornication" and "going after strange flesh." And so these people rejected the prophets by refusing to heed the prophet's warnings to cease fornicating and going after strange flesh. Simple. As for my reference to "an ill-informed oversimplification:" The Prophet Joseph Smith most assuredly knew the inhabitants of these cities rejected the prophets by their refusal to heed prophetic warnings to repent. Rejecting prophets and refusing to repent must necessarily always go hand in hand. My position is perfectly logical and in full harmony with holy writ: 9 And behold, that great city Jacobugath, which was inhabited by the people of king Jacob, have I caused to be burned with fire because of their sins and their wickedness, which was above all the wickedness of the whole earth, because of their secret murders and combinations; for it was they that did destroy the peace of my people and the government of the land; therefore I did cause them to be burned, to destroy them from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up unto me any more against them.10 And behold, the city of Laman, and the city of Josh, and the city of Gad, and the city of Kishkumen, have I caused to be burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof, because of their wickedness in casting out the prophets, and stoning those whom I did send to declare unto them concerning their wickedness and their abominations. (3 Nephi 9) Edited April 13, 2015 by teddyaware
rockpond Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 In deference to Daniel, this will be my last post on this thread... Except for a line or two, I'm wondering if you read my post. Rejection of the prophets can only occur when the prophetic warning message the prophets preach is rejected. One cannot reject the prophets without rejecting the prophet's warning messages to repent of specific sinful behaviors because that's the reason why the prophets are sent in the first place. Prophets are not sent unless there is a need to command people in the name of the Lord to repent, and the Apostle Jude said the foremost sins of the cities in question were "fornication" and "going after strange flesh." And so these people rejected the prophets by refusing to heed the prophet's warnings to cease fornicating and going after strange flesh. Simple. As for my reference to "an ill-informed oversimplification:" The Prophet Joseph Smith most assuredly knew the inhabitants of these cities rejected the prophets by their refusal to heed prophetic warnings to repent. Rejecting prophets and refusing to repent must necessarily always go hand in hand. My position is perfectly logical and in full harmony with holy writ: 9 And behold, that great city Jacobugath, which was inhabited by the people of king Jacob, have I caused to be burned with fire because of their sins and their wickedness, which was above all the wickedness of the whole earth, because of their secret murders and combinations; for it was they that did destroy the peace of my people and the government of the land; therefore I did cause them to be burned, to destroy them from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up unto me any more against them.10 And behold, the city of Laman, and the city of Josh, and the city of Gad, and the city of Kishkumen, have I caused to be burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof, because of their wickedness in casting out the prophets, and stoning those whom I did send to declare unto them concerning their wickedness and their abominations. (3 Nephi 9) I read your post. And this post. I think we're mostly in agreement. I just don't think you can simplify it down to "homosexuality". We also have a statement from Ezekiel 16 on S&G: "49. Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 1
Daniel2 Posted April 13, 2015 Author Posted April 13, 2015 In deference to Daniel, this will be my last post on this thread...Except for a line or two, I'm wondering if you read my post. Rejection of the prophets can only occur when the prophetic warning message the prophets preach is rejected. One cannot reject the prophets without rejecting the prophet's warning messages to repent of specific sinful behaviors because that's the reason why the prophets are sent in the first place. Prophets are not sent unless there is a need to command people in the name of the Lord to repent, and the Apostle Jude said the foremost sins of the cities in question were "fornication" and "going after strange flesh." And so these people rejected the prophets by refusing to heed the prophet's warnings to cease fornicating and going after strange flesh. Simple.As for my reference to "an ill-informed oversimplification:" The Prophet Joseph Smith most assuredly knew the inhabitants of these cities rejected the prophets by their refusal to heed prophetic warnings to repent. Rejecting prophets and refusing to repent must necessarily always go hand in hand. My position is perfectly logical and in full harmony with holy writ: 9 And behold, that great city Jacobugath, which was inhabited by the people of king Jacob, have I caused to be burned with fire because of their sins and their wickedness, which was above all the wickedness of the whole earth, because of their secret murders and combinations; for it was they that did destroy the peace of my people and the government of the land; therefore I did cause them to be burned, to destroy them from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up unto me any more against them.10 And behold, the city of Laman, and the city of Josh, and the city of Gad, and the city of Kishkumen, have I caused to be burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof, because of their wickedness in casting out the prophets, and stoning those whom I did send to declare unto them concerning their wickedness and their abominations. (3 Nephi 9)Thanks, Teddy.I'm not attempting to cease the conversation about that--just keep this thread on topic. Please do feel free to start a new thread on that subject, if you'd like.
thesometimesaint Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) Nothing in that statement gives you the right/responsibility to carry out the punishment. Edited April 13, 2015 by thesometimesaint
Kenngo1969 Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 I don't think they'll have any real choice but to rule in favor of gay marriage. There isn't really any kind of valid legal case to be made against it. Not the way the precedents have gone, but (while I'm sure you'll disagree with this ... Vive le difference!) that doesn't mean the precedents are right.
Gray Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 Not the way the precedents have gone, but (while I'm sure you'll disagree with this ... Vive le difference!) that doesn't mean the precedents are right. Well, I'm not a lawyer, but I haven't seen any kind of compelling legal argument against SSM. All kinds of religious arguments can be made, but those aren't relevant in a court case. To be specific, I haven't seen anyone make any kind of case for why the state should have an interest in banning gay couples from getting married. 2
Mormonmaniac Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 Do you really think shunning and teaching can change behavior to a point of eradicating it? That's completely naive to me. It would just drive the behavior underground or in the shadows. Zion is possible. It is true that some in society will never obey the commandments and for them hell awaits.
Mormonmaniac Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 I understand that you believe that gay marriage is against God's will. But no one is forcing you to have a gay marriage. There is a lot of immorality in the world. Members are suppose to be in the world but not of it. Gay marriage is no different than any of the other sins. You are not expected or required to participate. No freedoms will be taken away from you when gay marriage is legalized. Once again, this is your original quote Making gay marriage out to be some "ultimate sin" is just not part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is not even a sin that you or 97% of the population of this country will even be tempted to partake of. Adultery, fornication, and divorce, are all legal in this country. These are moral sins that effect the majority of people. I hardly think the wrath of God is going to be released upon this nation over a sin that so very few people are even tempted to participate in when adultery, fornication and divorce are ramped in this country. The thing that will take away your freedom are your own sins. The horrific day you speak of is the day that you yourself commit a grievous sin. Forcing on the sins of others does not lead to your own salvation. Only guarding yourself from the sins you are tempted to commit will. This is the gospel Christ taught. Gay marriage is up there with the worst of blasphemies.
Recommended Posts