No True Scotsman And Faithful Latter-Day Saints

[rockpond]

That is fine to be comfortable. That is actually the problem. 

 

My position is right not because I am comfortable with it but because that is what has been  talked about in church and backed up by scripture.

 

Lets consider the belief in reincarnation. Several of the points you bring up for same sex marriage apply to this belief. It is not really talked about in the scripture. Some could argue that "it is not in there specifically saying that "reincarnation is false" so I believe it."

 

Well, there is nothing really in the scriptures condemning it . How ever the prophets have made statements that it is a false belief and not compatible with the gospel of Christ. 

 

Should I wish for a revelation that will spell out that reincarnation is true, conference talks wont do? Why would I? So far it has been condemned by church authorities and the bible is largely silent. 

 

It makes no sense to then start advocating for that position. And that one day in 40 years there will probably be a revelation once the GA's figure it out.

 

This is essentially what you are doing with your position.

 

If you want to hope for a revelation about reincarnation, feel free.  I won't stop you.  Nor will I criticize you for it.

[sethpayne]

ROFL!!

But they so much LIKED to meet new people!

You need to take this routine on the road. You have a future in stand up comedy

 

Have you read Ezekiel?  16:49

 

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.

 

 

 

Plus, if we want to take those Genesis verses as moral guidelines then we can conclude offering our daughters up to rapists is perfectly acceptable.

 

I'm not saying that homosexuality didn't play a factor -- it may have -- but I don't think Genesis gives us nearly enough information to conclude this.  Add to that the verse in Ezekiel where the problem was exlplicitly stated to be pride, gluttony, laziness and no concern for the poor.

 

ETA vs. 50 for fuller context

 

And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good

 

 

So perhaps homosexuality was the "abomination" referred to but it seems odd that Ezekiel would lay out very specific violations but be vague about one.

Edited May 12, 2015 by sethpayne

[sethpayne]

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.

 

Seriously?  You don't think a contextual understanding of homosexuality in the ancient near east is important?  We see it all over the place.  And why?  Because it was largely a symbol of one man gaining dominance over another.  The myth of Horus and Set in Egypt shows this.

 

So I don't think we can say the OT is a "slam dunk" on this question.  If homosexuality was the problem then why did the OT never mention lesbianism?  A curious exclusion for a book that is VERY specific in all other cases of the law.

Edited May 12, 2015 by sethpayne

[CV75]

Okay... so let's take a look at it:  Where did God reflect his original intent for marriage?

What sources (if not the content) do you accept for looking at it, and what point do you accept as “original”? I’m very liberal in this regard in that I accept D&C 68:3-4, Alma 30:44, D&C 88:13 and the like.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Have you read Ezekiel?  16:49

 

 

Plus, if we want to take those Genesis verses as moral guidelines then we can conclude offering our daughters up to rapists is perfectly acceptable.

 

I'm not saying that homosexuality didn't play a factor -- it may have -- but I don't think Genesis gives us nearly enough information to conclude this.  Add to that the verse in Ezekiel where the problem was exlplicitly stated to be pride, gluttony, laziness and no concern for the poor.

 

ETA vs. 50 for fuller context

 

 

So perhaps homosexuality was the "abomination" referred to but it seems odd that Ezekiel would lay out very specific violations but be vague about one.

Except for the fact that the account is corrected by Joseph Smith, sure.

[sethpayne]

Except for the fact that the account is corrected by Joseph Smith, sure.

 

I think that most Mormons would agree that the JST is hardly an accurate representation of the ancient text.  It is an "inspired translation."  

[rockpond]

What sources (if not the content) do you accept for looking at it, and what point do you accept as “original”? I’m very liberal in this regard in that I accept D&C 68:3-4, Alma 30:44, D&C 88:13 and the like.

 

Okay, I understand those scriptures and accept them.  You wanted to stick with scriptures about marriage.  I asked "Where did God reflect his original intent for marriage?"

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Okay, I understand those scriptures and accept them.  You wanted to stick with scriptures about marriage.  I asked "Where did God reflect his original intent for marriage?"

 

1:29 And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them.(2)>

1:30 And I, God, blessed them and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.(2)>

[mfbukowski]

I think that most Mormons would agree that the JST is hardly an accurate representation of the ancient text.  It is an "inspired translation."  

Ah yes, and of course every ancient text was written by the hand of God, so they are better, right?

 

So clearly Leviticus is written by the hand of God, but Smith is just chopped liver, right?

Edited May 12, 2015 by mfbukowski

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Ah yes, and of course every ancient text was written by the hand of God, so they are better, right?

 

So clearly Leviticus is written by the hand of God, but Smith is just chopped liver, right?

Some of your posts are great and so thoughtful, and others come across so caustic - reading the worst possible interpretation into those with whom you disagree. It is so jarring for me. You really think that your comments here represent Seth's position?

Edited May 12, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[CV75]

Okay, I understand those scriptures and accept them.  You wanted to stick with scriptures about marriage.  I asked "Where did God reflect his original intent for marriage?"

I said let's stick with [the topics of] scripture and marriage, rather than conflating them with irrelevancies as you started to do.

 

Those few verses I shared were just to offer an idea of what I consider scripture, and all of those sources reflect God's original intent for marriage. Elder Sitati's talk is an excellent example of drawing upon and aligning with those sources, but you seem to think that he is as benighted as LDS Church leaders when it comes to understanding what God has shown what marriage is and will continue to be.

[rockpond]

I said let's stick with [the topics of] scripture and marriage, rather than conflating them with irrelevancies as you started to do.

 

Those few verses I shared were just to offer an idea of what I consider scripture, and all of those sources reflect God's original intent for marriage. Elder Sitati's talk is an excellent example of drawing upon and aligning with those sources, but you seem to think that he is as benighted as LDS Church leaders when it comes to understanding what God has shown what marriage is and will continue to be.

 

I think he is teaching and reinforcing current LDS doctrine.

[mfbukowski]

Have you read Ezekiel?  16:49

 

 

Plus, if we want to take those Genesis verses as moral guidelines then we can conclude offering our daughters up to rapists is perfectly acceptable.

 

I'm not saying that homosexuality didn't play a factor -- it may have -- but I don't think Genesis gives us nearly enough information to conclude this.  Add to that the verse in Ezekiel where the problem was exlplicitly stated to be pride, gluttony, laziness and no concern for the poor.

 

ETA vs. 50 for fuller context

 

 

So perhaps homosexuality was the "abomination" referred to but it seems odd that Ezekiel would lay out very specific violations but be vague about one.

Edited May 12, 2015 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

I think he is teaching and reinforcing current LDS doctrine.

Of course he is!

 

So we can see that the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve model how to overcome various kinds of biases and establish unity under the guidance of the Spirit (see D&C 102). They are clear on the nature and permanency of the principle of marriage in a Gospel context (see D&C 102:23). Contending against those teachings isn’t a responsibility the Lord has asked any of us to take on (see 3 Nephi 11). “Sharing” hopes that those teachings will change to accommodate patterns contrary to the principles of life undermines the unity the Lord is asking each saint to sustain. This what we do when we understand and accept scripture in all its legitimate forms.

[rockpond]

 

...implying that there were no scriptural condemnations of homosexuality, which is blatantly absurd.

I honestly do not care how you interpret scripture, or anything else for that matter. But to say that it does not condemn homosexuality is ridiculous.

I personally oppose ssm because it is a clear re-definition of traditional marriage which I support. Now if you want to get into all the reasons I think that way, I will be glad to oblige, but that is beyond the scope of this thread.

You know I am a "Pragmatist" and I think the general idea of ssm is "against nature" meaning that in an evolutionary sense, it doesn't work, and I am assuming you are sophisticated enough to see that that is not a trivial argument.

I am also against it because I think it goes against the entire concept of an "I-Thou" relationship, and the need for an "other" to fulfill both God and man as "mini-gods".

Getting into it is beyond the scope of this forum so I won't. But just know that I have what I think are very good reasons.

 

No, not implying that... there are scriptural condemnation of some homosexual acts (not "homosexuality").  But they are minimal and context is important.

 

I don't see SSM has against nature.  I actually see it as part of nature as homosexuality seems to be a constant part of life here on earth.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by an "I-Thou" relationship but respect you for not wanting to derail the thread (though it is pretty well derailed at this point).  I see SSM as important so that gay sons and daughters of God also have the opportunity, in this life, to make the sacrifices and find the joys that come through a covenant relationship with another person.

[rockpond]

Of course he is!

 

So we can see that the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve model how to overcome various kinds of biases and establish unity under the guidance of the Spirit (see D&C 102). They are clear on the nature and permanency of the principle of marriage in a Gospel context (see D&C 102:23). Contending against those teachings isn’t a responsibility the Lord has asked any of us to take on (see 3 Nephi 11). “Sharing” hopes that those teachings will change to accommodate patterns contrary to the principles of life undermines the unity the Lord is asking each saint to sustain. This what we do when we understand and accept scripture in all its legitimate forms.

 

I'm sorry -- I just don't see the current teachings on homosexuality to be creating any unity in the church.

[mfbukowski]

Some of your posts are great and so thoughtful, and others come across so caustic - reading the worst possible interpretation into those with whom you disagree. It is so jarring for me. You really think that your comments here represent Seth's position?

Well thanks for the commment, I guess I should tone it down.

I sometimes take a position to the farthest logical extreme to show the consequences of affirming the position stated in the post. It's the way my mind works. I take a position and see if as stated, what kind of challenges anyone could bring to that particular statement. I am an extremely skeptical person who has lived with total philosophical skepticism now for over 50 years, and have tried to create an understanding of the world which is atuned to my skeptic nature.

I like Seth a lot, and certainly did not mean to offend him or anyone else. It's just that it makes absolutely no sense to comment that Joseph is any less a "prophet" who has the ability to edit scripture than all the thousands of nameless scribes and redactors who "actually" wrote what is now the Bible.

I happen to believe that Joseph really was inspired, but those guys? Who knows who they even were? Perhaps if you studied more about the origins of the Bible you would be as jaded as I am in that regard, but certainly Seth is a big boy and can fight his own battles. He is extremely brilliant and incredibly well educated in these matters, so frankly I was surprised he would take this position.

I certainly apologize if I offended Seth or anyone else.

Thanks for pointing it out, and I will try, yet again, to get more civilized.

[CV75]

I see SSM as important so that gay sons and daughters of God also have the opportunity, in this life, to make the sacrifices and find the joys that come through a covenant relationship with another person.

Important within a certain minimal "universe" I suppose (and context is also important), but non-essential in any universe.

[CV75]

I'm sorry -- I just don't see the current teachings on homosexuality to be creating any unity in the church.

There you go again, conflating sexuality with marriage... and the Lord's standard of unity.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Seth, straight up?

I don't care. The original assertion was:

...implying that there were no scriptural condemnations of homosexuality, which is blatantly absurd.

I honestly do not care how you interpret scripture, or anything else for that matter. But to say that it does not condemn homosexuality is ridiculous.

I personally oppose ssm because it is a clear re-definition of traditional marriage which I support. Now if you want to get into all the reasons I think that way, I will be glad to oblige, but that is beyond the scope of this thread.

You know I am a "Pragmatist" and I think the general idea of ssm is "against nature" meaning that in an evolutionary sense, it doesn't work, and I am assuming you are sophisticated enough to see that that is not a trivial argument.

I am also against it because I think it goes against the entire concept of an "I-Thou" relationship, and the need for an "other" to fulfill both God and man as "mini-gods".

Getting into it is beyond the scope of this forum so I won't. But just know that I have what I think are very good reasons.

 

I think you misunderstand Rockpond. There are two sets of new testament verses (Romans and Corinthians) that condemn some types of homosexuality. In the old testament we only have Leviticus declaring it an abomination (along with 13 dietary restrictions). Nothing in the BOM, D&C, or Pearl of Great price. This is not a lot to go off of. 

 

So Paul condemns it twice. Paul also says things like "Women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate even as the law says. If they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church."  and yet we let women speak in sacrament meeting all the time. In my opinion there is just as much scriptural basis for the racist justifications of the priesthood ban as there is condemnation of homosexuality in the scriptures.

[mfbukowski]

No, not implying that... there are scriptural condemnation of some homosexual acts (not "homosexuality").  But they are minimal and context is important.

 

I don't see SSM has against nature.  I actually see it as part of nature as homosexuality seems to be a constant part of life here on earth.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by an "I-Thou" relationship but respect you for not wanting to derail the thread (though it is pretty well derailed at this point).  I see SSM as important so that gay sons and daughters of God also have the opportunity, in this life, to make the sacrifices and find the joys that come through a covenant relationship with another person.

Yeah, sin in general is a part of life here on earth.  Not the greatest argument. 

 

Read Buber, read Berdyaev, think yin and yang and opposition in all things

 

To be in God's image requires a pair, male and female.  I think that is a crucial concept.  We are to be the bride of Christ.   Marriage has a purpose, and though it leads to happiness, happiness is not its reason for existence.  It participates in universal forces, and is not just a ticket to sexual fulfillment.

Edited May 12, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I think you misunderstand Rockpond. There are two sets of new testament verses (Romans and Corinthians) that condemn some types of homosexuality. In the old testament we only have Leviticus declaring it an abomination (along with 13 dietary restrictions). Nothing in the BOM, D&C, or Pearl of Great price. This is not a lot to go off of. 

 

So Paul condemns it twice. Paul also says things like "Women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate even as the law says. If they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church."  and yet we let women speak in sacrament meeting all the time. In my opinion there is just as much scriptural basis for the racist justifications of the priesthood ban as there is condemnation of homosexuality in the scriptures.

The scriptures largely say whatever you want them to say.  I try to rule my life by the spirit and testimony, not the words of men who someone tells me are "inspired"

 

I have a testimony of every single principle I believe, or I do not believe it.  My goal is to reconstitute the scriptures in my heart, as God reveals them to me, and that includes "non-scriptural" sources.

 

My only point was that clearly the scriptures condemn homosexuality.  If they do once, they do.  That's it.  No more to discuss on this.

 

It is clear the church condemns homosexual behavior.  I personally don't care if ssm is legal actually.  All kinds of things that I disagree with are legal- who cares?

 

But form me, I am opposed to any kind of religious position that maintains that God endorses ssm or homosexual behavior.

 

I don't believe it, and no one has ever shown me a reason to do so.  Until they do, and the spirit confirms it, I will stick to this position

[mfbukowski]

I think that most Mormons would agree that the JST is hardly an accurate representation of the ancient text.  It is an "inspired translation."  

Honestly, Seth I wish you would clarify your position on ancient scripture vs Joseph being a "prophet" and why an "accurate representation of the ancient text." is better than an "inspired translation".

 

Perhaps you did not mean that?

[mfbukowski]

I think you misunderstand Rockpond. There are two sets of new testament verses (Romans and Corinthians) that condemn some types of homosexuality. In the old testament we only have Leviticus declaring it an abomination (along with 13 dietary restrictions). Nothing in the BOM, D&C, or Pearl of Great price. This is not a lot to go off of. 

 

So Paul condemns it twice. Paul also says things like "Women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate even as the law says. If they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church."  and yet we let women speak in sacrament meeting all the time. In my opinion there is just as much scriptural basis for the racist justifications of the priesthood ban as there is condemnation of homosexuality in the scriptures.

All these arguments from analogy don't work.

 

The moon looks like cheese therefore it is cheese.  You have to look at how each functions and the purpose of each and compare what the function of each was and see whether or not there is a legitimate reason for the policy or not.  Because one looks like the other, it doesn't mean that is at all relevant to anything.  Maybe a chariot is blue and a car is blue and so there are similar functions and appearances, but a chariot is not a car.

[mfbukowski]

What does this mean in an LDS context?

 

 

²⁷ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

Hebrew scholars?   Any input?

 

"Eloheim" is plural, right?  Does it imply that God is a male and female plural?

 

Are we supposed to be like God?  Is this relevant for exaltation?

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokovoy/2014/12/god-gods-and-goddesses-making-sense-of-the-elohim-in-genesis/

Bokovoy:

 

Both Genesis 3:5a and 1:27, therefore, not only follow the same grammatical pattern, they both imply that their respective authors believed in the existence of male and female ’elohim for humans to either be or become like.

Edited May 12, 2015 by mfbukowski