Two New Ensign Articles Affirming Marriage Between A Man And A Woman

[HappyJackWagon]

Not Racist?!   And there the Argument (Product of his environment) raises its head once again.

You missed the point but of course in some ways Christ was a product of his environment. Of course. Would he have been born a Jew if he had been born in America? No. Did his Jewish upbringing impact his life? Of course. Jesus wasn't racist like Brigham was.

 

Also, do you believe that is a literal, direct quote from Christ? Just curious.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, and that's pretty weird, Scott. But what will happen when you it comes out you are wrong? Everyone will be forgiving and loving. What brings some people happiness is just silly and absurd to others, I guess.

I won't be wrong.

 

And being forgiving and loving is not tantamount to excusing or justifying sexual sin, which is what homosexual behavior is.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[DJBrown]

I think the essay makes it pretty clear that the church's stand is that the ban originated with Brigham Young and did not come from God.  

 

However, I do believe that many members still believe that if it began under the direction of a Prophet of God (and continued with many more Prophets of God), it was from God.

 

And I think you are reading into the text of the essay.  It doesn't say that.  It dismisses the theories for the ban.  It doesn't dismiss the ban.

[theplains]

I agree with you that the Church will never back down on it position about homosexual marriage.

 

They 'may' receive a timely revelation (like in 1978) and turn over a long held position and announce

that 'God' accepts these types of marriages because they 'feel' the people were born that way and

that marriage is required for exaltation.  

 

Time will tell.

 

Regards,

Jim

[DJBrown]

Who's conflating?

 

I can denounce the ban as racist and it has NOTHING to do with Christ. The actions of Brigham instituting a racist ban that lasted over 120 years is not the same thing as Christ being born in Israel and teaching the jews. It's quite an absurd comparison. Christ and Brigham are not equal.

 

Regarding the "dog" comment, it is my understanding that Christ was describing how the Samaratins were in a position of merely receiving the unwanted scraps from the table of the jews. It wasn't racist, but rather a commentary on the social environment of his day.

 

ETA- If the prophet announced at the next conference there would be a ban on all red heads going to the temple would you consider that of God? Would you expect the church to explain the ban or would you expect me to explain why the ban was NOT of God.

 

It has direct implications for Christ's own words and actions.  Consider Matthew 15:

 

"Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coastsof Tyre and Sidon.

 22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

 23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

 24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

 25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

 26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.

 27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.

 28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour."

Also these words from Christ:

"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."  Matthew 10:5-6

Using your logic, is this not racist?  Of course.  But God has a perspective that we don't.  We don't have to apologize for Him.

[Scott Lloyd]

They 'may' receive a timely revelation (like in 1978) and turn over a long held position and announce

that 'God' accepts these types of marriages because they 'feel' the people were born that way and

that marriage is required for exaltation.  

 

Time will tell.

 

Regards,

Jim

There is no good reason to hope or expect such a thing would ever happen.

[stemelbow]

I won't be wrong.

 

And being forgiving and loving is not tantamount to excusing or justifying sexual sin, which is what homosexual behavior is.

you are currently wrong about any number of things, just like the rest of us. Ain't no thing. No one's going to shout with glee or even make a point about you being wrong when those errors are uncovered. No idea why the idea of telling someone he's wrong 40 years from now is so exciting to you.

[cinepro]

The priesthood/temple ban was racist by definition.  And the Church has "unequivocally" condemned all past racism in "any form".

 

I think that's about as clear a statement as we'll ever get that the ban was wrong.  I understand if you interpret it differently.  But that is the point I make in bringing up the priesthood/temple ban as a reason why gay marriage policies may someday change.

 

No, this is the clearest statement we'll ever get that the ban was wrong:

 

How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

 

President Hinckley, General Conference April 2006

[HappyJackWagon]

It has direct implications for Christ's own words and actions.  Consider Matthew 15:

 

 

You didn't address my questions but I'll assume by this response that you do believe these are literal, direct quotations from the Savior.

 

I'll say it again. Brigham Young and Jesus Christ are not equal so there is no need to conflate Christ's actions with Brighams's as a way to justify Brigham.

[CV75]

I agree, well stated.

 

I do see a lot of everyone agreeing that leaders are fallible, however, I see very little of some on here actually being able to be specific regarding any mistakes that have been made.  I think the closest is in saying that Brigham Young may have been mistaken with implementing the ban.

 

I even see written that Joseph Smith made mistakes and was fallible, but when push comes to shove, most will rarely admit where he made these mistakes (ie. how he lived polygamy and so on).

As the Lord demonstrated in 3 Nephi 23 (and several places in D&C), He is the One to point out specific mistakes in doctrine, practice and personal behavior, and He does so when He determines there is the need for correction. He sometimes communicates His will in this regard through His servants.

 

The Lord is asking for us to exercise an element of self-control in 3 Nephi 11 with regards to how we handle the dissemination of points of doctrine by His fallible servants. Accusing and judging on points of fallibility are more aligned with contention than with charity, and contention with pushing and shoving an agenda than with trying to sustain His servants’ guidance and direction.

 

I think that also goes for the zeal to publish perceived mistakes, shortcomings, etc., whether that is about the points of doctrine taught by His servants or about His servants themselves. I think 3 Nephi 11 shows that He would rather we place our focus on sustaining those servants whether they teach doctrine we find difficult to understand or accept, or they teach it fallibly, or they make changes and corrections as time goes by.

[Scott Lloyd]

you are currently wrong about any number of things, just like the rest of us. Ain't no thing. No one's going to shout with glee or even make a point about you being wrong when those errors are uncovered. No idea why the idea of telling someone he's wrong 40 years from now is so exciting to you.

Because its damnable heresy to claim or expect or hold out hope that God will repeal the law of chastity. I can only hope this will be come clearer to some -- if it isn't already -- as time goes by.

[rockpond]

No, this is the clearest statement we'll ever get that the ban was wrong:

 

You win.  Thanks.

[DJBrown]

No, this is the clearest statement we'll ever get that the ban was wrong:

 

So we can conclude that the Lord was being racist when He instructed that only Levites would hold the Priesthood in ancient Israel?

[stemelbow]

Because its damnable heresy to claim or expect or hold out hope that God will repeal the law of chastity. I can only hope this will be come clearer to some -- if it isn't already -- as time goes by.

Yesterday's damnable heresy is today's norm. There's no need to worry...if an idea is wrong today such error will be obvious sometime down the road.

[stemelbow]

So we can conclude that the Lord was being racist when He instructed that only Levites would hold the Priesthood in ancient Israel?

Or perhaps those who claimed God so instructed. Of course you are aware that Church leaders of the past claimed it was God who instituted the ban, right?

[Scott Lloyd]

Yesterday's damnable heresy is today's norm. There's no need to worry...if an idea is wrong today such error will be obvious sometime down the road.

I think it already obviously wrong. But if not, I want to hasten that day.

[DJBrown]

Or perhaps those who claimed God so instructed. Of course you are aware that Church leaders of the past claimed it was God who instituted the ban, right?

 

So both ancient and modern prophets are wrong as it relates to the Levites being rightful holders of the Levitical or Aaronic Priesthood?  

 

Where does this end?

[cinepro]

So both ancient and modern prophets are wrong as it relates to the Levites being rightful holders of the Levitical or Aaronic Priesthood?  

 

Where does this end?

 

I don't know.  Did the Levites have a different skin color? Was that the basis for their Priesthood exclusivity?

 

Hopefully it ends with no Melchizedek Priesthood holders assuming that another worthy man shouldn't hold the priesthood because of their skin color.  President Hinckley's question and it's meaning seems pretty clear (English was his first language), so I don't know where any confusion would be coming from.

Edited September 2, 2015 by cinepro

[Gray]

Because its damnable heresy to claim or expect or hold out hope that God will repeal the law of chastity. I can only hope this will be come clearer to some -- if it isn't already -- as time goes by.

 

The only formal articulation of the Law of Chastity is in the temple, and no mention of gay marriage or anything close to it appears there.

 

The informal version(s) that appears in lesson manuals and talks currently defines polygamy as adultery. So it's clear that the law of chastity can be modified. 

Edited September 2, 2015 by Gray

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't know. 

Apparently you don't know.

[Gray]

So we can conclude that the Lord was being racist when He instructed that only Levites would hold the Priesthood in ancient Israel?

 

Levite is not a race. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The only formal articulation of the Law of Chastity is in the temple, and no mention of gay marriage or anything close to it appears there.

 

The informal version that appears in lesson manuals and talks currently defines polygamy as adultery. So it's clear that the law of chastity can be modified. 

Polygamy can change. But what makes you think that that is akin to gay marriage?

[Gray]

Polygamy can change. But what makes you think that that is akin to gay marriage?

 

Well, if we're talking about how the law of chastity has been interpreted, something defined as sacred and right (polygamy) can be redefined as adultery. So if we're defining relations within gay marriage as a kind of fornication now, who is to say that couldn't be redefined in the future?

Edited September 2, 2015 by Gray

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Levite is not a race. 

Yeah and? It was restricted. Was that a mistake?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well, if we're talking about how the law of chastity has been interpreted, something defined as sacred and right (polygamy) can be redefined as adultery. So if we're defining relations within gay marriage as a kind of fornication now, who is to say that couldn't be redefined in the future?

You are leaving out information Gray. There is reason for the change and that is in the BoM. That he may command it at times and other times it is forbidden. Where is such a scripture for gay marriage?