rockpond Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 Translation, this does not say that SSM is a sin. I really am not seeing the logic of those that wish for SSM. We don't need a revelation that is plain as day. Actually, just for reference, the temple definition of the Law of Chastity does not specifically refer to "husband and wife" only to "legally and lawfully wedded spouse".
Gray Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) Was the law of chastity worded differently back when plural marriages/ sealings were taking place? I would think it would have to have been, but I don't know the answer Edited September 2, 2015 by Gray
stemelbow Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 Oh I see if the government approves of it it must be sanctioned. I think I see where the issue is. The only issue is that you are not getting it. God's laws are not mans laws. You seem to think that mans laws should be God's laws. It is irrelevant that plural marriage was not legal. And BTW it was unconstitutional to deny the saints the legality of those marriages. So the law of chastity being defined with legal and lawful in it is problematic in your view? or shall the Church refine for your convenience?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_R._Lyman http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/richard_r._lyman http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/central/provo/history-repeats-itself-as-lds-activists-go-public/article_9b9a90af-99b9-516a-9b93-ca6d589875ab.htmlI am sorry where was Chastity redefined?
Gray Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 There is no need for a revelation defining marriage as between a man and a woman when that has been the definition of marriage from the beginning. Again, look at the quote from Elder (now President) Nelson: "Sin, even if legalized by man is still sin in the eyes of God." To put it another way, courts lack the power to adjudicate away divine law. You don't accept that? Fine. But don't kid yourself into believing, or don't think you can talk us into accepting, that your peculiar views trump the authoritative doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ. As with old doctrines on the curse of Ham, this doctrine depends entirely on attitudes we've inherited from culture. 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 Actually, just for reference, the temple definition of the Law of Chastity does not specifically refer to "husband and wife" only to "legally and lawfully wedded spouse".Which the prophets have affirmed some many times is only between a man and a woman.
Gray Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 That's a complete canard.Complete.The Law of Chastity states that the only acceptable sexual relations are between husband and wife, legally and lawfully wedded. The wording of the actual law as given in the temple is much more ambiguous than that. Your formulation, "between husband and wife" does not appear in the law of chastity.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 So the law of chastity being defined with legal and lawful in it is problematic in your view? or shall the Church refine for your convenience?HUh? What are you talking about? You are still missing the point with this totally irrelevant sentence of yours. Things are not sanctioned by God because they are legal in a country. You seem to think they should be.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) The wording of the actual law as given in the temple is much more ambiguous than that. Your formulation, "between husband and wife" does not appear in the law of chastity. Tell me Gray, what GA has ever alluded that SSM should happen one day? Or that this formula of marriage between one man and one woman will change or should change? Edited September 2, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Buckeye Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 It is clear in retrospect that Elder Richards erred, and in fact, Brigham Young denounced him publicly for doing so. That is why I specified the united voice of the prophets and apostles. If you're going to set the bar that high, it would be helpful if you could provide a list of all teachings that have been given by the united voice of the current FP/Q12. Also, are you sure you want to set the bar so high? The Strength of Youth pamphlet I hand out to my youth is only signed by the FP.(see https://www.lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth?lang=eng) SoI guess they can ignore those standards? And current members of the FP/Q12 certainly don't limit their authority to when they speak in a united voice. Consider Elder Bednar's recent "I am scripture" talk (http://anonymousbishop.com/2015/08/10/i-am-scripture/) 1
Gray Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 Why would it need to be? As Russell has been at pains to point out, the concept of marriage between a man and a woman still was effective under plural marriage. The marriages were not legal, so the the language about the marriage needing to be legal would not seem to make sense for those kinds of unions
stemelbow Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 HUh? What are you talking about? You are still missing the point with this totally irrelevant sentence of yours. Things are not sanctioned by God because they are legal in a country. You seem to think they should be. Not really. Everyone agreed, at least before you came in, that legal and lawful were terms used to define the law of chastity. Now yo come in saying, essentially, legal and lawful have no bearing on chastity.
Russell C McGregor Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_R._Lyman http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/richard_r._lyman http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/central/provo/history-repeats-itself-as-lds-activists-go-public/article_9b9a90af-99b9-516a-9b93-ca6d589875ab.html Thank you, Gray. Your sources do not say what you assert, namely that polygamy is "defined as" adultery. Actually all unauthorised plural marriages, going right back to Joseph Smith's time, were seen as non-valid marriages, ergo, Law of Chastity violations. Elder Lyman's plural marriage was unauthorised, hence invalid. An invalid marriage is not a marriage.
Gray Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) I am sorry where was Chastity redefined? He was excommunicated for adultery, according to those sources. What happened was he was living polygamy. Therefore polygamy was redefined as adultery. At least it was by those who excommunicated him. Edited September 2, 2015 by Gray
Gray Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 Tell me Gray, what GA has ever alluded that SSM should happen one day? Or that this formula of marriage between one man and one woman will change or should change? No, I don't think any GA has ever hinted that the change will happen. But I believe it will.
cinepro Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 Things are not sanctioned by God because they are legal in a country. You seem to think they should be. As has been pointed out, the very distinction of whether or not sex is "sanctioned by God" is whether or not a man and woman are legally married. It's not a matter of priesthood or the spirit, it is only a matter of legality. So some things are.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 2, 2015 Author Posted September 2, 2015 If you're going to set the bar that high, it would be helpful if you could provide a list of all teachings that have been given by the united voice of the current FP/Q12. Also, are you sure you want to set the bar so high? The Strength of Youth pamphlet I hand out to my youth is only signed by the FP.(see https://www.lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth?lang=eng) SoI guess they can ignore those standards? And current members of the FP/Q12 certainly don't limit their authority to when they speak in a united voice. Consider Elder Bednar's recent "I am scripture" talk (http://anonymousbishop.com/2015/08/10/i-am-scripture/) Can you cite an instance where in the Quroum of the Twelve Apostles has disputed a declaration by the First Preisdency?
rockpond Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 Which the prophets have affirmed some many times is only between a man and a woman. Granted. I just wanted to be clear (since I believe someday we'll rely heavily on that temple definition).
ALarson Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 Here's where I read that the Law of Chastity was worded differently back during the days of plural marriage (posted by JLHPROF): http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65488-joseph-smiths-promise-made-to-helen-mar-kimball/?p=1209504100
Gray Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) Thank you, Gray. Your sources do not say what you assert, namely that polygamy is "defined as" adultery. Actually all unauthorised plural marriages, going right back to Joseph Smith's time, were seen as non-valid marriages, ergo, Law of Chastity violations.Elder Lyman's plural marriage was unauthorised, hence invalid. An invalid marriage is not a marriage. According to my sources he was excommunicated for adultery (ie he entered into polygamy after the practice had been discontinued). I'm sure that no true Scotsman would enter into a plural marriage without permission, so we can safely say that Lyman was not a son of Scotland. Edited September 2, 2015 by Gray
cinepro Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 If you're going to set the bar that high, it would be helpful if you could provide a list of all teachings that have been given by the united voice of the current FP/Q12. Also, are you sure you want to set the bar so high? The Strength of Youth pamphlet I hand out to my youth is only signed by the FP.(see https://www.lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth?lang=eng) SoI guess they can ignore those standards? And current members of the FP/Q12 certainly don't limit their authority to when they speak in a united voice. Consider Elder Bednar's recent "I am scripture" talk (http://anonymousbishop.com/2015/08/10/i-am-scripture/) Interestingly, this means we'll be experiencing a hard reset on all doctrine when we get two new apostles.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 2, 2015 Author Posted September 2, 2015 The marriages were not legal, so the the language about the marriage needing to be legal would not seem to make sense for those kinds of unionsI see the terms "legal and lawful" as applying primarily to laws of God and not men. If and when there is a conflict, the laws of God are pre-eminent. 1
cinepro Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 Can you cite an instance where in the Quroum of the Twelve Apostles has disputed a declaration by the First Preisdency? They don't have to. All they have to do, apparently, is not sign their names to it and it isn't doctrinal.
stemelbow Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 Can you cite an instance where in the Quroum of the Twelve Apostles has disputed a declaration by the First Preisdency? Sure. But you aren't going to like it. I'd say the Quorum of the 12 is united in condemning the racism of the Church's past. That racism includes statements by members of the First Presidency, even official declarations of the First Presidency. Hope that helps.
Gray Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) I see the terms "legal and lawful" as applying primarily to laws of God and not men. If and when there is a conflict, the laws of God are pre-eminent. Maybe. Today the church insists that all marriages be legal (according to human laws), otherwise they are invalid. I don't know how they interpreted it 150 years ago, or if that language was present. Edited September 2, 2015 by Gray 2
Recommended Posts