rockpond Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 That is not what I asked. I specifically asked you if you view the PotF as a "pattern of reading cultural norms & biases into scripture and believing that they reflect God's will". IF you were to ask me my response is "No it absolutely does not represent "a pattern of reading cultural norms & biases into scripture and believing that they reflect God's will" and I can even explain why this is. This is God's will and it is His plan. I see no evidence that it should or would or even could change. Quite the opposite in fact. I see that it cannot change as it goes against God and his plan. Can you do the same with your position? Actually, you didn't specifically ask me if I viewed "the PotF as a "pattern of reading cultural norms & biases into scripture and believing that they reflect God's will". But my answer to that question is yes, I think there is a little bit of cultural norms and biases built into it. I respect your belief that the PotF represents God's will. That's great. You should follow it. I do. It was prominently displayed in my home until my wife recently redecorated and removed it but I imagine she'll find a new place for it soon. I've explained my position. I'm not sure what your final questions is referring to.
CV75 Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 Correct: Scriptures on marriage were not used to justify policies concerning race and the priesthood. Scriptures referring to race were. And then those scriptures referring to race were used to restrict the ability of certain people to be married/sealed in the temple. I'm not sure what you are asking in that second sentence. Scriptures reflect man's interaction with God and the divine. The extent to which the reflect God's will is a matter for the Spirit to testify to each of us. But, I'm not trying to dodge the question, if you can clarify it, I'll try to answer.I’m not sure how to clarify/simplify the question. The supposed infusion of a tendency to read “cultural norms & biases into scripture and believing that they reflect God's will” affecting the direction of the Lord’s servants would only bolster the current teaching of the covenant of marriage as the Church expands in the Eastern Hemisphere. It is not an “American” religion anymore (not that there was anything wrong with that…). Are you trying to say that the scriptures on marriage (beginning with Genesis) reflect God's will and yet He intends African LDS / LDS Africans to apply them to same-gender marriage? Regardless of how anyone can twist, change or steal its meaning, the covenant of marriage cannot be any more or less than what the scriptures have said it is across time and cultures (and into the future, according to D&C).
Russell C McGregor Posted May 11, 2015 Author Posted May 11, 2015 It happened before. Could it happen again?Of course it could.For example, those triumphalistic proselytizing apostates who point to the apparently irresistible victory of the "gay" jihad and demand to know when the Church is going to get with the times -- even, in the plenitude of their arrogance, presuming to reinterpret the scriptures in the "light" of the counter-gospel of "political correctness" are clearly "reading cultural norms & biases into scripture and believing that they reflect God's will."Either that, or they don't believe God's will really matters. I suspect the latter. 2
rockpond Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 Of course it could.For example, those triumphalistic proselytizing apostates who point to the apparently irresistible victory of the "gay" jihad and demand to know when the Church is going to get with the times -- even, in the plenitude of their arrogance, presuming to reinterpret the scriptures in the "light" of the counter-gospel of "political correctness" are clearly "reading cultural norms & biases into scripture and believing that they reflect God's will."Either that, or they don't believe God's will really matters. I suspect the latter. Since this doesn't describe my position, I will assume that you are addressing someone else.
rockpond Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 I’m not sure how to clarify/simplify the question. The supposed infusion of a tendency to read “cultural norms & biases into scripture and believing that they reflect God's will” affecting the direction of the Lord’s servants would only bolster the current teaching of the covenant of marriage as the Church expands in the Eastern Hemisphere. It is not an “American” religion anymore (not that there was anything wrong with that…). Are you trying to say that the scriptures on marriage (beginning with Genesis) reflect God's will and yet He intends African LDS / LDS Africans to apply them to same-gender marriage? Regardless of how anyone can twist, change or steal its meaning, the covenant of marriage cannot be any more or less than what the scriptures have said it is across time and cultures (and into the future, according to D&C). Some cultural norms and biases cross national boundaries. And to answer your question, no. But is it possible that we can see things in scripture regarding limitations to the covenant of marriage that aren't really there? Sure. We did it with respect to the priesthood and race. I'm not sure why it couldn't happen with respect to sexual orientation.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 But my answer to that question is yes, I think there is a little bit of cultural norms and biases built into it. What part specifically is "a little bit of cultural norms and biases built into it".
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 Since this doesn't describe my position, I will assume that you are addressing someone else.But it is your position that gay marriage should happen in the temple via a revelation?
rockpond Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 But it is your position that gay marriage should happen in the temple via a revelation?Determining "should" is beyond my pay grade. I hope that it could.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 Determining "should" is beyond my pay grade. I hope that it could.OF course. But you think it should happen? Yeah? 40 years from now?
rockpond Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 OF course. But you think it should happen? Yeah? 40 years from now?Exchange "hope" for "should".
mfbukowski Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 The pattern of reading cultural norms & biases into scripture and believing that they reflect God's will. And precisely how does one NOT "read cultural norms & biases into scripture" ?
mfbukowski Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 Let me get this straight. This is just "pattern of reading cultural norms & biases into scripture and believing that they reflect God's will"?? Of course not. Didn't you know that those who propose ssm are the only ones who know God's will correctly? Man, you are just out of it. 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 Of course not. Didn't you know that those who propose ssm are the only ones who know God's will correctly?Man, you are just out of it. That is what it feels like.
mfbukowski Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 But in any case, the scriptures on marriage were never used to justify policies concerning race and the priesthood. Are you trying to say that the scriptures on marriage (beginning with Genesis) reflect God's will and that He intends readers to apply them to same-gender marriage? Of course. All that stuff condemning homosexuality are clearly the "philosophies of men" reflecting the prejudices of the day. The prejudices of today are exempt from the philosophies of men and correct in every respect.
mfbukowski Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 Hey Brian, I just found another one! How to Become Gluten Intolerant I just learned that aluminum foil is entirely gluten free! Now my insides will be as protected as my head is, from my foil helmet! I am so glad to have learned the truth!
mfbukowski Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 (edited) So, you have evidence that a white dude and a female Polynesian were denied a temple marriage prior to 1978?I hear that Poles could not marry Irish people either! Edited May 11, 2015 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 Of course it could. For example, those triumphalistic proselytizing apostates who point to the apparently irresistible victory of the "gay" jihad and demand to know when the Church is going to get with the times -- even, in the plenitude of their arrogance, presuming to reinterpret the scriptures in the "light" of the counter-gospel of "political correctness" are clearly "reading cultural norms & biases into scripture and believing that they reflect God's will." Either that, or they don't believe God's will really matters. I suspect the latter.You beat me to the punch!
Teancum Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 Here's a suggestion, Canard: next time you "respond" to something I post, how about you try reading it first?Here, again, for your edification:But what about a white man who wanted to marry a Polynesian woman? A Polynesian man and an Asian woman? An Asian man and a Native American woman? A Native American man and a white woman? Where was the "ban" on those "racially mixed" marriages, pre 1978? Seems pretty clear to me Canard is referring to a white person and a black person. Got it? Or do you just want to be intentionally obtuse?
rockpond Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) And precisely how does one NOT "read cultural norms & biases into scripture" ?One doesn't. Edited May 12, 2015 by rockpond
rockpond Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 Of course. All that stuff condemning homosexuality are clearly the "philosophies of men" reflecting the prejudices of the day. The prejudices of today are exempt from the philosophies of men and correct in every respect.Why don't you share with us everything in our scriptural canon that "condemns homosexuality".
rockpond Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 Of course not. Didn't you know that those who propose ssm are the only ones who know God's will correctly?Man, you are just out of it. It's only fair since all those who oppose SSM are the only ones who know God's will correctly. What an odd point to make.
mfbukowski Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) Why don't you share with us everything in our scriptural canon that "condemns homosexuality". It's only fair since all those who oppose SSM are the only ones who know God's will correctly. What an odd point to make.Golly whillakers I guess you are right. My bad. I forgot about all those passages in the bible praising sodomy and the proclamation on the family which clearly states that it doesn't matter who you marry or how many and that homosexuality is a good thing. Gosh and all those general authorities that are always telling us to just do what feels good and God will love us for it!! After all God is love, right? So make love not war! Piece and freedom! Silly me!!! But wait a minute- why are we arguing about it then since the scriptures praise homosexuality? Edited May 12, 2015 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 One doesn't.Oh good. Then we can be sure that todays norms are the will of God, right? Whew! I am glad that discussion is over! I hate arguing
Russell C McGregor Posted May 12, 2015 Author Posted May 12, 2015 Seems pretty clear to me Canard is referring to a white person and a black person. Got it? Or do you just want to be intentionally obtuse?I'm glad that's clear to you. Because it's not clear in what Canard actually wrote. Was a mixed race temple marriage possible before 1978? No, not at all. Is it now? Have things changed?What do the words "not at all" mean to you, Teancum?Who, exactly, is being "intentionally obtuse?" 2
rockpond Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 Golly whillakers I guess you are right. My bad.I forgot about all those passages in the bible praising sodomy and the proclamation on the family which clearly states that it doesn't matter who you marry or how many and that homosexuality is a good thing.Gosh and all those general authorities that are always telling us to just do what feels good and God will love us for it!! After all God is love, right? So make love not war! Piece and freedom!Silly me!!!But wait a minute- why are we arguing about it then since the scriptures praise homosexuality?Too much sarcasm for this to be worth my time. Have a good evening.
Recommended Posts