No True Scotsman And Faithful Latter-Day Saints

[mfbukowski]

What does this mean in an LDS context?

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:

Silence?

Really?

[rockpond]

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.

Exactly. Thank you.

[Calm]

  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.

Given the percentage of homosexuals in the general population (I believe someone said around 2% is agreed upon a bit ago) and given the percentage of unmarried in the Church as reported by the Pew study in another thread, it appears to me that even if not one LDS homosexual married either in a heterosexual or homosexual relationship, they would still be outnumbered by single heterosexuals in the Church who do not have the opportunity to have the covenant relationship that you are speaking of during mortality (19% was the number given, even if one assumes a large part of it is due to age, it seems to me unlikely to drop below 2% of the total population).

 

Is my reasoning faulty in some way, am bit distracted at the moment.

[rockpond]

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

Stick to that position. Definitely. I support you. Just recognize that I too am trying to rule my life by the spirit and testimony. And, as you beautifully stated, reconstitute the scriptures in my heart as God reveals them to me. I can't explain why that leads us to different conclusions on some things but I trust that the Lords knows.

[rockpond]

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

I'm not conflating sexuality with marriage (though they are connected) I'm just not confining my comments to the box you created.

[Teancum]

I'm glad that's clear to you. Because it's not clear in what Canard actually wrote.

 

What do the words "not at all" mean to you, Teancum?

Who, exactly, is being "intentionally obtuse?"

You are being intentionally obtuse Russell because Canard through much of this thread as well as others have discussed the priesthood ban and linked it to the prohibition on black persons marrying in the temple pre 1978. When Canard brought up mixed race marriages it was fairly clear that he was referring the a black person marrying a white or other race person.

But really I think you knew that now didn't you.

[rockpond]

Given the percentage of homosexuals in the general population (I believe someone said around 2% is agreed upon a bit ago) and given the percentage of unmarried in the Church as reported by the Pew study in another thread, it appears to me that even if not one LDS homosexual married either in a heterosexual or homosexual relationship, they would still be outnumbered by single heterosexuals in the Church who do not have the opportunity to have the covenant relationship that you are speaking of during mortality (19% was the number given, even if one assumes a large part of it is due to age, it seems to me unlikely to drop below 2% of the total population).

Is my reasoning faulty in some way, am bit distracted at the moment.

I'd love for us to increase the percentage of people, on all fronts, who get to enjoy and grow from a covenant relationship.

[rockpond]

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.

You misunderstood. I was saying that homosexuality (the orientation) has always been a part of life on earth.

Homosexuality (the orientation) is not a sin.

I agree that marriage is not just about happiness and sexual fulfillment. Regarding the rest of the philosophy you describe... It sounds nice but I don't necessarily apply it in the same way you do.

[Calm]

You are being intentionally obtuse Russell because Canard through much of this thread as well as others have discussed the priesthood ban and linked it to the prohibition on black persons marrying in the temple pre 1978. When Canard brought up mixed race marriages it was fairly clear that he was referring the a black person marrying a white or other race person.

 

Except the counsel in the manual on marriage is about all races, not just blacks marrying other races and Canard used that as part of his argument iirc.

 

(The counsel is also about not mixing income, education and other social characteristics...iow, marriages between those of similar backgrounds are statistically more likely to succeed so be cautious not to assume that attraction is all that is needed, etc. etc)

Edited May 13, 2015 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

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)>

Alright. Great starting point. There we have God's commandment to Adam and Eve. What is the takeaway lesson for a gay individual from those verses?

[mfbukowski]

Given the percentage of homosexuals in the general population (I believe someone said around 2% is agreed upon a bit ago) and given the percentage of unmarried in the Church as reported by the Pew study in another thread, it appears to me that even if not one LDS homosexual married either in a heterosexual or homosexual relationship, they would still be outnumbered by single heterosexuals in the Church who do not have the opportunity to have the covenant relationship that you are speaking of during mortality (19% was the number given, even if one assumes a large part of it is due to age, it seems to me unlikely to drop below 2% of the total population).

 

Is my reasoning faulty in some way, am bit distracted at the moment.

I think it is perfect.

[mfbukowski]

Stick to that position. Definitely. I support you. Just recognize that I too am trying to rule my life by the spirit and testimony. And, as you beautifully stated, reconstitute the scriptures in my heart as God reveals them to me. I can't explain why that leads us to different conclusions on some things but I trust that the Lords knows.

Well good. Let me suggest that you think that through and come up with a logical reason and then let us know what it is. Socrates said the unexamined life is not worth living. And I think he was right. Edited May 13, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I'm not conflating sexuality with marriage (though they are connected) I'm just not confining my comments to the box you created.

Again wouldn't it be nice if you could voice your opinion on these matters?

[mfbukowski]

You are being intentionally obtuse Russell because Canard through much of this thread as well as others have discussed the priesthood ban and linked it to the prohibition on black persons marrying in the temple pre 1978. When Canard brought up mixed race marriages it was fairly clear that he was referring the a black person marrying a white or other race person.

But really I think you knew that now didn't you.

I know a brother who spoke atthe fair Mormon convention last year who says that all people are brown. The question is how do you define black.

I think that that was what Russell was saying but of course I cannot speak for him.

I think that speaking of blacks and the priesthood is ambiguous but male vs female is not. That is why the analogy does not work. clearly people of African descent can be as dark brown as any Polynesian and vice versa. but whom will you define as black? There is an inherent ambiguity there.

Edited May 13, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Sorry about the misspellings but I am using voice dictation because I don't have time to type the answers that I want to leave.

[mfbukowski]

Alright. Great starting point. There we have God's commandment to Adam and Eve. What is the takeaway lesson for a gay individual from those verses?

I suggest you take that on in an answer to post 425.

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

Maybe it's not in the Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants because it goes without saying.

When the Bible is fully univocal on a subject, with both the Old and New Testaments in perfect agreement, the silence of other Scriptures on the subject is equivalent to endorsement thereof. Qui tacet consentire.

(Offhand, I'm not aware of any ethical teaching in the Pearl of Great Price.)

[mfbukowski]

OK one more and I promise to shut up.In same-sex marriage how is exaltation supposed to work? there will be two married males and no females? That is certainly a possibility in a world with no sexual reproduction.

I am trying to see how one creates a model of God that is asexual that is still Mormon. I can see how that works with the Nicene Creed and sectarian ideas of the Trinity but I don't see it and a Mormon context at all. We are to true try to become like God yet God for us is sexual. I do not understand how we create a model for us to be like who is asexual.

Do we stop trying to be like God and Heavenly Mother. Is that the idea?

How is this all supposed to work?

Edited May 13, 2015 by mfbukowski

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Maybe it's not in the Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants because it goes without saying.

When the Bible is fully univocal on a subject, with both the Old and New Testaments in perfect agreement, the silence of other Scriptures on the subject is equivalent to endorsement thereof. Qui tacet consentire.

(Offhand, I'm not aware of any ethical teaching in the Pearl of Great Price.)

I don't dispute this possibility at all. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

OK one more and I promise to shut up.In same-sex marriage how is exaltation supposed to work? there will be two married males and no females? That is certainly a possibility in a world with no sexual reproduction.

I am trying to see how one creates a model of God that is asexual that is still Mormon. I can see how that works with the Nicene Creed and sectarian ideas of the Trinity but I don't see it and a Mormon context at all. We are to true try to become like God yet God for us is sexual. I do not understand how we create a model for us to be like who is asexual.

Do we stop trying to be like God and Heavenly Mother. Is that the idea?

How is this all supposed to work?

I for one have never seen any coherent strategy for meshing the idea with Mormon theology. I certainly don't know how to make it work. I do think that we see through a glass darkly and understand far less of the mysteries of heaven than we think (I think Calmoriah had a JS quote to this effect in another thread). I also seem to recall a story about JS saying that if we know all that he had to reveal about heaven, we would rise up and stone him. Like Nephi, I don't know the meaning of all things, but I do feel that God loves his children and wants to maximize their happiness here as well as in the world to come. As near as I can tell, his children seem to be happiest in committed relationships regardless of the genders involved. I look at Alma 32 and test the fruit of committed same sex relationships and don't see anything bad. I feel the same spirit that tells me the church is good for me, tell me that same sex relationships aren't bad. I don't know how it meshes together. I wish for further light and knowledge regarding same sex relationships, but don't see it coming. 

[rockpond]

Again wouldn't it be nice if you could voice your opinion on these matters?

Not sure what you're getting at.

[rockpond]

OK one more and I promise to shut up.In same-sex marriage how is exaltation supposed to work? there will be two married males and no females? That is certainly a possibility in a world with no sexual reproduction.

I am trying to see how one creates a model of God that is asexual that is still Mormon. I can see how that works with the Nicene Creed and sectarian ideas of the Trinity but I don't see it and a Mormon context at all. We are to true try to become like God yet God for us is sexual. I do not understand how we create a model for us to be like who is asexual.

Do we stop trying to be like God and Heavenly Mother. Is that the idea?

How is this all supposed to work?

We don't have enough revealed about exaltation and the creation of spirits to make any conclusions.

[mfbukowski]

I for one have never seen any coherent strategy for meshing the idea with Mormon theology. I certainly don't know how to make it work. I do think that we see through a glass darkly and understand far less of the mysteries of heaven than we think (I think Calmoriah had a JS quote to this effect in another thread). I also seem to recall a story about JS saying that if we know all that he had to reveal about heaven, we would rise up and stone him. Like Nephi, I don't know the meaning of all things, but I do feel that God loves his children and wants to maximize their happiness here as well as in the world to come. As near as I can tell, his children seem to be happiest in committed relationships regardless of the genders involved. I look at Alma 32 and test the fruit of committed same sex relationships and don't see anything bad. I feel the same spirit that tells me the church is good for me, tell me that same sex relationships aren't bad. I don't know how it meshes together. I wish for further light and knowledge regarding same sex relationships, but don't see it coming. 

Well thanks for being honest.

 

It is clear to me that indeed it just doesn't work, and at least some of those here know that, including Seth Payne who has published at least one paper indicating that there are serious conflicts and that Mormonism may be forced to change its position.

 

It's nice to know that such an articulate writer as Seth would agree with me that Mormonism cannot be the Mormonism we know while incorporating SSM.

 

I guess my problem is that I like Mormon doctrine just as it is.  Change it, and I would rather be Methodist frankly.   Were I interested in staying Mormon, and if I advocated SSM, I would consider these words carefully, because it is clear to me that Seth is right

 

 

CONCLUSION

The interpretation I present here of Joseph Smith’s original

teachings is a radical departure from modern Mormon notions of

sexuality as it relates to the eternal potential of humankind.

Also, it is not without problems. However, its key strength is

that it is based entirely upon the extant words of Joseph Smith

regarding human exaltation and also on the notes and journals of

his immediate contemporaries. In other words, I have given

primacy to contemporary, rather than late, sources.

As social orthodoxy moves towards greater acceptance of

same-sex relationships, the modern Mormon Church is likely to

make some accommodations in response. It would be fruitless to

speculate on what these accommodations may be. However,

modern Mormonism has been keen to downplay, and even

disavow some of the teachings of Brigham Young when such

teachings have proven problematic.45 It seems to me, then, that

Brigham Young’s explicit sexualization of God, and its resulting

dogma, may be a teaching yet to be discarded. Teryl Givens has

noted that Mormonism is a religion of paradox.46

Paradoxically, modern Mormonism may need to look back in

an effort move forward.

 

Seth Payne

 MORMONISM AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

JOURNAL OF CATHOLIC LEGAL STUDIES [Vol. 51:41,2012]

 

http://www.sethpayne.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/mormon_theology_gender_final.pdf

[mfbukowski]

We don't have enough revealed about exaltation and the creation of spirits to make any conclusions.

Yes, because there are not any that are consistent with Mormonism AND make logical sense

 

You get to figure one out for yourself I guess.

 

For me, if the church changes on this, I would leave and keep the same theology we have now, because I believe that we are to become like God and I cannot see how that can happen with an asexual God

 

Humanity is not asexual.  We have a Heavenly Mother.   All that goes out if SSM is endorsed. God lives in a sexed family relationship, a Man and Woman, according to our theology, and we are charged to become like Father and Mother.   I love that about the church.

 

All that goes.  Those who are advocating it need to know that and be fine with that idea, or account for the change in some kind of a logical manner.  Good luck.  Back to the Nicene Creed I guess.  Community of Christ, here we come

Edited May 13, 2015 by mfbukowski

[rockpond]

Maybe it's not in the Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants because it goes without saying.

When the Bible is fully univocal on a subject, with both the Old and New Testaments in perfect agreement, the silence of other Scriptures on the subject is equivalent to endorsement thereof. Qui tacet consentire.

(Offhand, I'm not aware of any ethical teaching in the Pearl of Great Price.)

Now, in addition to Scott's "self-evident" argument we have Russell's "goes without saying" argument.

Conflicts between section 132 and modern teachings? Well, let's just insert some extra language in the D&C that is "self-evident".

Lack of scriptural support for condemning gay marriage? Well, it "goes without saying".