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

[Teancum]

I never knew "Ah, chill out dude" was an expression of respect.  

 

But please do show me more of this respect you demand.

 

 

Ok look I am sorry.  That is why I put to goofy face there when you said you were responding to more than just my comments and it seemed a bit snarky to me.  The chill out was in jest.   Anyway I do not want to get into a snark for snark posting style so again I apologize for fueling this.

[Teancum]

http://witcombe.sbc.edu/eve-women/7evelilith.html

 

According to midrashic literature, Adam's first wife was not Eve but a woman named Lilith, who was created in the first Genesis account. Only when Lilith rebelled and abandoned Adam did God create Eve, in the second account, as a replacement. In an important 13th century Kabbalah text, the Sefer ha-Zohar ("The Book of Splendour") written by the Spaniard Moses de Leon (c. 1240-1305), it is explained that:

 

• At the same time Jehovah created Adam, he created a woman, Lilith, who like Adam was taken from the earth. She was given to Adam as his wife. But there was a dispute between them about a matter that when it came before the judges had to be discussed behind closed doors. She spoke the unspeakable name of Jehovah and vanished.

 

Lilith makes a second appearance In Isaiah as well.

 

 

Is that Canon?

[Gray]

I spotted your problem.

 

Only one? Things are looking up!

[KevinG]

How about Latter day Saint be honest that there is nothing in scripture, Bible included like LDS 19th century polygamy and polyandry.  It  is clear that more than one wife and additional concubines was the culture of the time and the Bible is written to accommodate that.  More reason to believe God had little to do with it and more to compel one to conclude that the people who wrote the Bible created a God in their image.  But there is nothing like D&C 132 where God commands taking plural wives to get the highest spot in heaven let alone the nonsense the LDS leaders after Joseph taught to justify it.

 

Next as noted I doubt the LDS Church will ever allow plural marriage in their temple. Nor do I think they will ever do polygamy again at least for mortality.

As for you be willing to accept any revelation even if it flies in the face of what you believe well good for you I guess. Personally I find the shifting ethics of the idea that whatever God commands is right and that this can change and be the opposite of what it once was a dangerous mind set.  And it seems fairly convenient for the person claiming God speaks through them.

 

I don't accept your argument that D&C 132 is not scriptural.  Honest Latter-day Saints believe it is.

 

(...and if you are trying to be respectful in your tone, backhanded accusations that LDS are not honest in presenting their beliefs is not a good way to do it.)

[CV75]

If I understand you correctly, your suggestion is that gay church members sacrifice by ignoring their sexual orientation.  Then what?  Marry someone of the opposite sex?

 

Not acting on a homosexual orientation does not make one heterosexual.  It doesn't make one capable of a successful heterosexual marriage.  It was the counsel of the Church for many years before they realized the disastrous consequences and asked ecclesiastical leaders to stop recommending that course of action.

You clearly do not understand me correctly. I said, "It depends" and that the saints have far more in common than not. I think the basic cause of your not understanding me is that you are narrowly defining people while I am only narrowly  defining the covenant of marriage.

 

You clearly do not understand me correctly by reading making people or covenants heterosexual, and recommending any specific course of action into my remarks about people making sacrifices and making covenants. It appears you are not even listening, LOL!

[Teancum]

I don't accept your argument that D&C 132 is not scriptural.  Honest Latter-day Saints believe it is.

 

(...and if you are trying to be respectful in your tone, backhanded accusations that LDS are not honest in presenting their beliefs is not a good way to do it.)

 

 

I did not say D&C 132 is not scriptural. For LDS it is.  For anyone else not so.   But if I am able to debate here I think arguing that the apologetic defense of defending polygamy through the Bible is a bad one.  Yes implying dishonesty is not proper and I wrote it when I was irritated about your other comments.

 

That said this forum is tough.  Skeptics like me are accused off all sorts of things and railed on any time the a priori assumption of LDS truth claims are challenged. But LDS here can make all sorts of affirmative points based purely on their faith and subjective testimony.  Anyone who challenges that is bad, and apostate, anti Mormon and disrespectful.    I have lots more to say about this but have learned it is really a futile effort so I will end now.

[KevinG]

So man and woman being made for each other isn't biblical?  That was my Genesis reference.  And as long as you are on an LDS/Mormonism board you might get used to us using Latter-day revelation in defense of our beliefs.  I never attempted to defend my faith otherwise.  Go figure?  Here is a neat cut 'n paste from the guide to the scriptures on marriage...

 

A lawful covenant or contract between a man and a woman that makes them husband and wife. God ordained marriage (D&C 49:15).

It is not good that man should be alone:Gen. 2:18; ( Moses 3:18; )

A man shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh:Gen. 2:24; ( Matt. 19:5; Abr. 5:18; )

What God has joined together, let not man put asunder:Matt. 19:6; ( Mark 10:9; )

In the latter days some shall depart from the faith, forbidding to marry:1 Tim. 4:1–3;

Marriage is honorable:Heb. 13:4;

The Lord commanded Lehi’s sons to marry the daughters of Ishmael:1 Ne. 7:1, 5; ( 1 Ne. 16:7–8; )

God created Adam and Eve to be man and wife:Moses 3:7, 18, 21–25;

Jesus taught the law of marriage:Luke 20:27–36;

Neither is the man without the woman in the Lord:1 Cor. 11:11;

Husband and wife are heirs together of the grace of life:1 Pet. 3:7;

Whatsoever you shall seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven:Hel. 10:7; ( Matt. 16:19; )

To obtain the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, a man must enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage:D&C 131:1–4;

If a man marry a wife not by me, their covenant and marriage is not of force when they are dead:D&C 132:15;

If a man marry a wife by my word and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, it shall be of full force when they are out of the world:D&C 132:19;

 

Try not to feign victim-hood at the hands of the amateur apologists.  We all post here voluntarily and your tone isn't the most magnanimous I've read in defense or criticism of the church.

[rockpond]

You clearly do not understand me correctly. I said, "It depends" and that the saints have far more in common than not. I think the basic cause of your not understanding me is that you are narrowly defining people while I am only narrowly  defining the covenant of marriage.

 

You clearly do not understand me correctly by reading making people or covenants heterosexual, and recommending any specific course of action into my remarks about people making sacrifices and making covenants. It appears you are not even listening, LOL!

 

I'm just trying to understand the application of your interpretations/definitions.

 

Your unwillingness (or perhaps inability) to explain how your scriptural interpretations work in the actual lives of people I love leaves me feeling that your 2 Nephi exegesis is relatively worthless.  Saying "it depends" and lacking any recommendations (even generic or high-level) gives me the impression that your words are "as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal".

 

But that's fine... Go ahead and continue with your interpretations, promote the ideas in the Hafen article.  I just don't see the point.  I don't know any heterosexual people who don't already want a male-female marriage.  And I don't know any homosexual people who can successfully enter into a male-female marriage.  Just don't be surprised if we continue losing the hearts and minds of our church members on the issue.

[Teancum]

So man and woman being made for each other isn't biblical?  That was my Genesis reference.  And as long as you are on an LDS/Mormonism board you might get used to us using Latter-day revelation in defense of our beliefs.  I never attempted to defend my faith otherwise.  Go figure?  Here is a neat cut 'n paste from the guide to the scriptures on marriage...

 

A lawful covenant or contract between a man and a woman that makes them husband and wife. God ordained marriage (D&C 49:15).

It is not good that man should be alone:Gen. 2:18; ( Moses 3:18; )

A man shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh:Gen. 2:24; ( Matt. 19:5; Abr. 5:18; )

What God has joined together, let not man put asunder:Matt. 19:6; ( Mark 10:9; )

In the latter days some shall depart from the faith, forbidding to marry:1 Tim. 4:1–3;

Marriage is honorable:Heb. 13:4;

The Lord commanded Lehi’s sons to marry the daughters of Ishmael:1 Ne. 7:1, 5; ( 1 Ne. 16:7–8; )

God created Adam and Eve to be man and wife:Moses 3:7, 18, 21–25;

Jesus taught the law of marriage:Luke 20:27–36;

Neither is the man without the woman in the Lord:1 Cor. 11:11;

Husband and wife are heirs together of the grace of life:1 Pet. 3:7;

Whatsoever you shall seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven:Hel. 10:7; ( Matt. 16:19; )

To obtain the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, a man must enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage:D&C 131:1–4;

If a man marry a wife not by me, their covenant and marriage is not of force when they are dead:D&C 132:15;

If a man marry a wife by my word and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, it shall be of full force when they are out of the world:D&C 132:19;

 

Try not to feign victim-hood at the hands of the amateur apologists.  We all post here voluntarily and your tone isn't the most magnanimous I've read in defense or criticism of the church.

 

 

I am not claiming victimhood.  I apologized to you. You keep wanting to be strident. I have worked on my tone lately to be more respectful.  If that is not good enough for you too bad I guess.

Where am I claiming the Bible and other LDS Canon does not claim man and women are made for each other?  Are you mixing me up with someone else?

[KevinG]

Where am I claiming the Bible and other LDS Canon does not claim man and women are made for each other?  Are you mixing me up with someone else?

 

Excuse me.  After re-reading I noticed you only had an issue with polygamy not being in the Bible.  I thought you were taking issue with the whole idea that homosexuality was prohibited by the Bible.  Easy to do in a thread on marriage between a man and a woman.

 

IF the Lord decided same sex marriage was compatible with exaltation then I would expect another revelation on the matter.  I'm not holding my breath.

[CV75]

I'm just trying to understand the application of your interpretations/definitions.

They are as varied as the people involved and the reasons they might be confiding about their spiritual lives.

 

Your unwillingness (or perhaps inability) to explain how your scriptural interpretations work in the actual lives of people I love leaves me feeling that your 2 Nephi exegesis is relatively worthless.  Saying "it depends" and lacking any recommendations (even generic or high-level) gives me the impression that your words are "as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal".

I can’t say I know the people you love, so your expectations are unrealistic. Another unrealistic expectation is that I would just tell them what to do. I also think it is incredibly two dimensional and unfair to simply refer to “them” as “gay brothers and sisters” (as you have) and suggest that provides the one and only clue to all their problems and solutions.

 

A couple of posts ago I offered generic and high-level recommendations that also hold up in more personal, individual application. There are many scriptures and principles to draw upon when counseling with people on the topic of marriage. The principle of “an opposition in all things” is only one that I brought up for the purposes of a turn taken in this thread.

 

My basic advice for you is to not pigeonhole people, and to focus on the Savior. That puts you in a better position to help others to not pigeonhole themselves and to focus on the Savior. He will guide anyone truly interested in coming unto Him, in every needful detail and particular. Of course you’re doing this already (and more), so just be patient.

 

But that's fine... Go ahead and continue with your interpretations, promote the ideas in the Hafen article.  I just don't see the point.  I don't know any heterosexual people who don't already want a male-female marriage.  And I don't know any homosexual people who can successfully enter into a male-female marriage.  Just don't be surprised if we continue losing the hearts and minds of our church members on the issue.

I think you need to find out that there are more permutations and options than that.

[Teancum]

Excuse me. After re-reading I noticed you only had an issue with polygamy not being in the Bible. I thought you were taking issue with the whole idea that homosexuality was prohibited by the Bible. Easy to do in a thread on marriage between a man and a woman.

IF the Lord decided same sex marriage was compatible with exaltation then I would expect another revelation on the matter. I'm not holding my breath.

No problem.

As I have noted I think the LDS church ever accepting same sex marriage is slim to none. But perhaps the Plural marriage was as shocking to the saints in the 1840s as the church accepting same sex marriage would be today.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Teancum

[rockpond]

They are as varied as the people involved and the reasons they might be confiding about their spiritual lives.

I can’t say I know the people you love, so your expectations are unrealistic. Another unrealistic expectation is that I would just tell them what to do. I also think it is incredibly two dimensional and unfair to simply refer to “them” as “gay brothers and sisters” (as you have) and suggest that provides the one and only clue to all their problems and solutions.

A couple of posts ago I offered generic and high-level recommendations that also hold up in more personal, individual application. There are many scriptures and principles to draw upon when counseling with people on the topic of marriage. The principle of “an opposition in all things” is only one that I brought up for the purposes of a turn taken in this thread.

My basic advice for you is to not pigeonhole people, and to focus on the Savior. That puts you in a better position to help others to not pigeonhole themselves and to focus on the Savior. He will guide anyone truly interested in coming unto Him, in every needful detail and particular. Of course you’re doing this already (and more), so just be patient.

I think you need to find out that there are more permutations and options than that.

I understand that each soul is unique, but we can speak in generalities here to advance the dialogue (since we aren't actually counseling any specific individual).

I also understand your hesitancy to offer any kind of actual path based on your interpretations because that's where your framework falls apart. And that's where I struggle with the Church's position on the matter... It so often puts gay members in the collateral damage category. They are relegated to the role of acceptable losses in the plan of salvation as they fall away from a church and faith that offers them no place.

[sunstoned]

Where is this direct revelation (1) claimed officially by the church as a revelation from God and (2) recorded as a revelation (ie added to canon)?

Modern leaders will hedge from proclaiming a revelation.  There hasn't been a "doth sayest the lord" type proclamation for a hundred years.   Everything since then, everything has been run through the PR committee and worded in such a way to allow a retreat if necessary.  If you look at it from a secular perspective, it is a good business practice.  You don't want to paint yourself into a corner.  

Edited September 10, 2015 by sunstoned

[sunstoned]

How about Latter day Saint be honest that there is nothing in scripture, Bible included like LDS 19th century polygamy and polyandry.  It  is clear that more than one wife and additional concubines was the culture of the time and the Bible is written to accommodate that.  More reason to believe God had little to do with it and more to compel one to conclude that the people who wrote the Bible created a God in their image.  But there is nothing like D&C 132 where God commands taking plural wives to get the highest spot in heaven let alone the nonsense the LDS leaders after Joseph taught to justify it.

 

Next as noted I doubt the LDS Church will ever allow plural marriage in their temple. Nor do I think they will ever do polygamy again at least for mortality.

As for you be willing to accept any revelation even if it flies in the face of what you believe well good for you I guess. Personally I find the shifting ethics of the idea that whatever God commands is right and that this can change and be the opposite of what it once was a dangerous mind set.  And it seems fairly convenient for the person claiming God speaks through them.

^This^ 

bolding mine

[sunstoned]

I don't accept your argument that D&C 132 is not scriptural.  Honest Latter-day Saints believe it is.

 

(...and if you are trying to be respectful in your tone, backhanded accusations that LDS are not honest in presenting their beliefs is not a good way to do it.)

Apparently Joseph Smith did not hold section 132 in high regard.  His practice of polygamy/polyandry was in in direct conflict with what was stated in 132.

[Scott Lloyd]

Modern leaders will hedge from proclaiming a revelation. There hasn't been a "doth sayest the lord" type proclamation for a hundred years. Everything since then, everything has been run through the PR committee and worded in such a way to allow a retreat if necessary. If you look at it from a secular perspective, it is a good business practice. You don't want to paint yourself into a corner.

I don't recall ever seeing the phrase "doth sayest the Lord" in holy writ. Or anywhere else, for that matter. It doesn't even make grammatical sense.

Did you, perhaps, mean "thus saith the Lord"?

[sunstoned]

I don't recall ever seeing the phrase "doth sayest the Lord" in holy writ. Or anywhere else, for that matter. It doesn't even make grammatical sense.

Did you, perhaps, mean "thus saith the Lord"?

ad hominem, the standard LDS apologetic fall back position when you can't address the real issue.

[Scott Lloyd]

ad hominem, the standard LDS apologetic fall back position when you can't address the real issue.

Well, I ran a search in the King James Bible for the string "doth sayest the Lord" and got no hits. Is the phrase in one of the other translations?

Edited September 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[sunstoned]

Well, I ran a search in the King James Bible for the string "doth sayest the Lord" and got no hits. Is the phrase in one of the other translations?

"Weasel words" is not a phrase that is in the KJV, but most people would understand what it means.  An example might be "I don't know that we teach that".  

[Calm]

I am reading Scott as simply looking for accuracy in quoting, not attempting to weasel out of anything. His posting history shows a healthy respect for the written word including making the effort to get it right, whether it is spelling, grammar, quotations, reported states, and known facts.

He can correct me if I am wrong.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

I am reading Scott as simply looking for accuracy in quoting, not attempting to weasel out of anything. His posting history shows a healthy respect for the written word including making the effort to get it right, whether it is spelling, grammar, quotations, reported states, and known facts.

He can correct me if I am wrong.

I agree that is what Scott is doing. Like sunstoned said, he is arguing about the incorrect word instead of addressing the issue. Looks like everyone agrees about that.

[CV75]

I understand that each soul is unique, but we can speak in generalities here to advance the dialogue (since we aren't actually counseling any specific individual).

I also understand your hesitancy to offer any kind of actual path based on your interpretations because that's where your framework falls apart. And that's where I struggle with the Church's position on the matter... It so often puts gay members in the collateral damage category. They are relegated to the role of acceptable losses in the plan of salvation as they fall away from a church and faith that offers them no place.

I offered some general principles that also serve as an actual path for individual saints’ decisions about marriage given their particular life circumstances. Let’s review. It involves the covenant as designed, the sacrifice required in making and keeping all covenants, the Lord’s atonement and grace, and faith (and the attending hope, patience and endurance) in the promises involved with the resurrection, judgement and exaltation. I think this accurately reflects the general doctrines and guidance found in Church publications, and also offers an "actual path". On the other hand, pushing the ideas of same-sex marriage and that sexuality, not gender, defines and drives eligibility for the marriage covenant is quite specific and it just pushes (or pushes against) a specific idea with no general application.

 

Hesitation? LOL

 

Age, sex, marital status and even language are fair generalizations for a programmatic approach to meet needs of the saints because they are clear cut. Sexuality, along with thousands of other attributes and conditions in a person’s life, follows too much of a spectrum not only in “categorization” (quantification and qualification), but more importantly in personal significance and meaning, to generalize (force them and the discussion) into two camps.

 

Once a person is accountable enough to manage his sexuality (or wealth, or intelligence, or race, or health, or interests, or nationality, or size, or personality, or education, or avocation, or talents … [i could go on forever]) in relation to his covenants, he doesn’t need another auxiliary program. The Church programs have already guided him to making the covenants he wants to keep. The blessings of the doctrines, covenants and ordinances (including priesthood counsel as needed)--most notably the Gift of the Holy Ghost--will guide him to their application and even to outside resources that might contribute to his ability to manage his life.

[Calm]

I agree that is what Scott is doing. Like sunstoned said, he is arguing about the incorrect word instead of addressing the issue. Looks like everyone agrees about that.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Please don't put words in my mouth.

 

What words did I put in your mouth? That Scott was looking at the accuracy of the language? That's what you said and I agreed with. Not sure what the problem is.