What Do We Know Of Marriage From The Bible, Book Of Mormon, And Latter-Day Revelation?

[Calm]

Why would God destroy a city over inhospitality?   God will put up with anything else but just don't be mean? 

Inhospitality that results in the death of strangers through town is generally viewed as more than just being mean.

[danielwoods]

Yes we pretty much agree except where you say an abominable type of marriage isn't really a marriage. It is a marriage even if it an abominable marriage, just as a church that isn't the true church of Christ is still a church even if it is an abomination to the way the true church of Christ is.

And I think people who argue that an abominable marriage isn't really a type of marriage just end up making their argument look silly. Anyone who can read a dictionary can know what it means to be married. We should just concede that a same sex marriage is a type of marriage even though it is an abomination to the type of marriage God our Father approves of.

 

If the definition is wide enough to encompass everything it loses it's meaning.

 

The reason we use words that have understood contextual definitions, is because it's a lot less cumbersome to speak to one another if we all understand the definitions of what is being said.  So, in a Biblical context, it doesn't have to say "heterosexual" marriage when talking about marriage, because that point is obvious by the biblical context. 

Edited September 12, 2015 by danielwoods

[Ahab]

If the definition is wide enough to encompass everything it loses it's meaning.

The reason we use words that have understood contextual definitions, is because it's a lot less cumbersome to speak to one another if we all understand the definitions of what is being said. So, in a Biblical context, it doesn't have to say "heterosexual" marriage when talking about marriage, because that point is obvious by the biblical context.

The word marriage isn't limited to a heterosexual context, though. It isn't even limited to people. The word is being used properly when we talk about how pipes can be married.

Apparently you don't care that your argument is just silly when you try to limit the word marriage to only heterosexual people, though.

Oh well. People can say silly things whenever they want to.

[Rivers]

A couple of decades ago if I were to say the phrase "marriage is between a man and a woman," the response would be "Thank you Captain Obvious." If I say that phrase today the response is "bigot!"

[thesometimesaint]

Food for thought on marriage.

SEE

[The Nehor]

Eh, I think you two are just talking past each other.  I.e. I think you agree in essence, you just haven't coordinated your words yet.

I prefer to think I am right and he is wrong.

[danielwoods]

The word marriage isn't limited to a heterosexual context, though. It isn't even limited to people. The word is being used properly when we talk about how pipes can be married.

Apparently you don't care that your argument is just silly when you try to limit the word marriage to only heterosexual people, though.

Oh well. People can say silly things whenever they want to.

 

Please demonstrate it's usage in a Biblical context that doesn't have a heterosexual meaning. 

[JLHPROF]

Are modern day polygamist, even where polygamy is legal, violating the law of chastity?

 

Yes.

 

Yes.

 

I'd LOVE to hear the reasoning on these responses.  Because the current law of chastity covenant asks only for legal and lawful.  The original law of chastity covenant allowed for plural marriages and required priesthood authority.

 

If we accept the world's monogamous civil marriages as not violating the law of chastity (even though they aren't under the covenant anyway), why would a polygamous civl marriage be any different if they aren't under the covenant?

 

What exactly makes the "law of chastity" as defined by God?

[The Nehor]

I'd LOVE to hear the reasoning on these responses.  Because the current law of chastity covenant asks only for legal and lawful.  The original law of chastity covenant allowed for plural marriages and required priesthood authority.

 

If we accept the world's monogamous civil marriages as not violating the law of chastity (even though they aren't under the covenant anyway), why would a polygamous civl marriage be any different if they aren't under the covenant?

 

What exactly makes the "law of chastity" as defined by God?

 

Only the Priesthood in this dispensation has the right and power to allow plural marriage and they have not authorized any lately. People participating in plural marriage cannot be baptized even if the secular law where they live allows it.

[JLHPROF]

Only the Priesthood in this dispensation has the right and power to allow plural marriage and they have not authorized any lately. People participating in plural marriage cannot be baptized even if the secular law where they live allows it.

 

Didn't say it would be authorized.  I asked how a civil polygamous marriage where legal is any more a violation of the law of chastity than a civil monogamous marriage where legal?  Which aspect of the law of chastity as given by God is it violating, and does it matter if the participants aren't under the chastity covenant?

 

Why are civil monogamous marriages chaste but civil polygamous ones are not?

Edited September 13, 2015 by JLHPROF

[The Nehor]

Didn't say it would be authorized.  I asked how a civil polygamous marriage where legal is any more a violation of the law of chastity than a civil monogamous marriage where legal?  Which aspect of the law of chastity as given by God is it violating, and does it matter if the participants aren't under the chastity covenant?

 

Why are civil monogamous marriages chaste but civil polygamous ones are not?

I don't know. This belongs with questions like: Why do we use olive oil for healing?

We were told to.

[Ahab]

What exactly makes the "law of chastity" as defined by God?

The phrase "within the bounds the Lord has set" should come to your mind. We need to know the boundaries the Lord has set to know what it means to be chaste, and to know that we need to know what our Lord has said either personally or through the Holy Spirit to his authorized messengers.

Now please act like you know what he has said instead of acting like you need someone to tell you right now. Surely you are not that ignorant.

[CV75]

I'd LOVE to hear the reasoning on these responses.  Because the current law of chastity covenant asks only for legal and lawful.  The original law of chastity covenant allowed for plural marriages and required priesthood authority.

 

If we accept the world's monogamous civil marriages as not violating the law of chastity (even though they aren't under the covenant anyway), why would a polygamous civl marriage be any different if they aren't under the covenant?

 

What exactly makes the "law of chastity" as defined by God?

Didn't say it would be authorized.  I asked how a civil polygamous marriage where legal is any more a violation of the law of chastity than a civil monogamous marriage where legal?  Which aspect of the law of chastity as given by God is it violating, and does it matter if the participants aren't under the chastity covenant?

 

Why are civil monogamous marriages chaste but civil polygamous ones are not?

I think we only need to concern ourselves with how He has defined chastity through His living servants. He has given them the keys and the parameters within to exercise them. They are living in our lifetime, exercising the keys during our lifetime and for our probation, and our lifetime is our probation.

 

We are thus blessed to have God's definition of chastity through our Church. Those not of our faith are invited to adopt it. Those who do not hear of it in this life will have the opportunity to receive it, eventually and inevitably.

 

I take “legally and lawfully” to refer to ecclesiastical boundaries, not civil. Wherever those are congruent, society is less confused about marriage and the law of chastity. We are being told that civil and religious society are moving further and further apart from each other, destabilizing both and the whole as community behavior rejects religious mores and as religious people become more secularly-minded.

 

Of course for LDS, that ecclesiastical boundary means one man and one woman.

 

However married (or unmarried) partners receive their greater light (and I suppose it could be said all light, however filtered, is ultimately God's) -- whether through their conscience, the laws of the land, the traditions of their fathers, their religion, etc. -- this is what God holds them accountable for. There is a law for different kingdoms. We are invited into the highest.

Edited September 14, 2015 by CV75

[Duncan]

I think we only need to concern ourselves with how He has defined chastity through His living servants. He has given them the keys and the parameters within to exercise them. They are living in our lifetime, exercising the keys during our lifetime and for our probation, and our lifetime is our probation.

 

We are thus blessed to have God's definition of chastity through our Church. Those not of our faith are invited to adopt it. Those who do not hear of it in this life will have the opportunity to receive it, eventually and inevitably.

 

I take “legally and lawfully” to refer to ecclesiastical boundaries, not civil. Wherever those are congruent, society is less confused about marriage and the law of chastity. We are being told that civil and religious society are moving further and further apart from each other, destabilizing both and the whole as community behavior rejects religious mores and as religious people become more secularly-minded.

 

Of course for LDS, that ecclesiastical boundary means one man and one woman.

 

However married (or unmarried) partners receive their greater light (and I suppose it could be said all light, however filtered, is ultimately God's) -- whether through their conscience, the laws of the land, the traditions of their fathers, their religion, etc. -- this is what God holds them accountable for. There is a law for different kingdoms. We are invited into the highest.

 

 

are homosexual not invited to the highest? I just wonder, honestly, what God expects of non member SSA people, like is he surprised by the gay movement, if he was or wasn't how would anyone know? 

[CV75]

are homosexual not invited to the highest? I just wonder, honestly, what God expects of non member SSA people, like is he surprised by the gay movement, if he was or wasn't how would anyone know? 

Certainly everyone is invited to the highest.

 

And certainly everyone has a conscience to follow, but who knows what may be interfering with it (internally or externally) or what is expected in the absence of greater light; only God can judge that. But I think His expectation is that we all do the best with what we’ve got under the circumstances we face. His expectation is that any light we’ve missed in this life will be offered in the spirit world, and any light we’ve out-and-out rejected in this life will be offered again (though we know it is difficult to fully accept rejected light when it comes around again). That addresses the responsibility an individual has toward himself, to obtain all God has to offer him.

 

The other responsibility an individual has is toward his fellow beings and requires a great deal of selflessness, which I believe is part of our conscience as well. It requires sustaining a society and a civilization above oneself.

 

I see sexuality as human as any other mortal capacity or attribute, and civilizations have had means of dealing with it, as they have with other capacities and attributes over the course of human history. How much civilization (government and religion being the key components) is inspired of God? I think quite a bit according to D&C 134. Some of this comes as shared light or uniting common conclusions from individuals' consciences, and some comes as  revelation and dispensation of keys. In doing so, He balances the needs of the individual with the needs of his society (for example, D&C 101’s instruction on the Constitution of the Unites States).

 

This is why I think it doesn’t help in the eternal scheme of things to classify sexuality according to mortal understanding—too many gradients, like “race,” which is just as unhelpful. Such classification does not help individuals look to Christ and His covenants. Rather, it encourages division and enmity. It is also why the current and “revolutionary” changes we see in societies’ and civilizations’ attitudes about sexuality are indicative of rejection of what God has instituted and inspired for thousands of years. The same goes for race (a society’s emphasis on race is a relatively recent development and is being discussed from a historical perspective in the last pages of the Mark E. Petersen thread).

 

I don’t think current events surprise Him!

[Gray]

Many, when they didn't have the Love of Christ

 

That is why the love Christ is so much more important.

 

So every one of them didn't have the Love of Christ? How would you even know if that were the case?

[The Nehor]

are homosexual not invited to the highest? I just wonder, honestly, what God expects of non member SSA people, like is he surprised by the gay movement, if he was or wasn't how would anyone know?

Those without law will be judged without law.

[Nemesis]

The phrase "within the bounds the Lord has set" should come to your mind. We need to know the boundaries the Lord has set to know what it means to be chaste, and to know that we need to know what our Lord has said either personally or through the Holy Spirit to his authorized messengers.

Now please act like you know what he has said instead of acting like you need someone to tell you right now. Surely you are not that ignorant.

Knock off the name calling. 

 

Nemesis

[The Nehor]

Knock off the name calling. 

 

Nemesis

Hey Nemesis,

While you are here why did I get banned from the 77 whatchamawhousit thread? I did not think I was insulting. Dismissive? Inappropriately jocular. Not contesting it, just curious.

I am trying to keep it to one, maybe two, thread bans a week.

[Ahab]

Knock off the name calling.

Nemesis

I was saying surely he is NOT ignorant of the bounds our Lord has set for what it means to chaste.

My apologies if that wasn't clear to you.

If I had called him ignorant, though, which I wasn't, it wouldn't be what I would call name calling, though. It wouldn't be meant as an insult. It would basically be the same thing as saying he didn't know something, whatever I was saying he didn't know. But I was saying he is surely NOT ignorant, which is the same as me saying he knows.

It might help if you PM me to discuss something with me before you accuse me of doing something I am not doing.

[Jeanne]

i, unfortunately and believe it or not..said no.  I am beginning to think that marriage to the church has nothing to do with love.  It is strictly obedience.  Gay people..really love each other..and we can't have that.  Some people married outside the Temple seem to be happy as others who are married in the Temple..but they probably are not..The whole question of whether this or that would fly with doctrine doesn't even matter..the doctrine sometimes changes and those who have found real love are apt to endure the hardships and rough patches of marriage.

 

As for polygamy, not really a lot of love there..not many happy campers..but I do believe that Emma was one of those who endured with faith of her love for Joseph..no matter how mad she got!

[The Nehor]

i, unfortunately and believe it or not..said no.  I am beginning to think that marriage to the church has nothing to do with love.  It is strictly obedience.  Gay people..really love each other..and we can't have that.  Some people married outside the Temple seem to be happy as others who are married in the Temple..but they probably are not..The whole question of whether this or that would fly with doctrine doesn't even matter..the doctrine sometimes changes and those who have found real love are apt to endure the hardships and rough patches of marriage.

 

As for polygamy, not really a lot of love there..not many happy campers..but I do believe that Emma was one of those who endured with faith of her love for Joseph..no matter how mad she got!

 

A great philosopher speaking on love and marriage:

 

 

Given the choice of an obedient (to God) wife and a wife who loves me and who I love then my emotions, drowned in the pap of silly love songs and poetry and novels and movies, wants the latter but the rational part of me wants the former. Love is not an all-consuming thing that can and must conquer all. Romantic love is not constant. It waxes and wanes. Nor is it alone a good basis for a marriage. Love wins out but Shakespeare knew better when he wrote Romeo and Juliet. Some relationships just can't work no matter how much you love the other person.

 

Same sex marriage is against the law of God. I have only a guess as to why and it may change in the future as many around here like to predict but I doubt it. All that being said it is still forbidden now. Lots of loving relationships are against the law of God. I had one myself. I hated God for a long time for not letting it happen but that is the way it is. Temple marriage is not solely about creating the "happiest marriage". It is about establishing a kingdom. Some people lack a strong capacity for romantic love. Two of my best friends are married and while they are best friends there is little passion there. They take joy in what they can in the hope that all will be made right in time.

 

As to polygamy I have some happy polygamous relationships in my family history. I would live it (or polyandry it that makes me look less like a sex fiend) if I had to but would rather not.

[Stargazer]

A great philosopher speaking on love and marriage:

 

 

Given the choice of an obedient (to God) wife and a wife who loves me and who I love then my emotions, drowned in the pap of silly love songs and poetry and novels and movies, wants the latter but the rational part of me wants the former. Love is not an all-consuming thing that can and must conquer all. Romantic love is not constant. It waxes and wanes. Nor is it alone a good basis for a marriage. Love wins out but Shakespeare knew better when he wrote Romeo and Juliet. Some relationships just can't work no matter how much you love the other person.

 

Same sex marriage is against the law of God. I have only a guess as to why and it may change in the future as many around here like to predict but I doubt it. All that being said it is still forbidden now. Lots of loving relationships are against the law of God. I had one myself. I hated God for a long time for not letting it happen but that is the way it is. Temple marriage is not solely about creating the "happiest marriage". It is about establishing a kingdom. Some people lack a strong capacity for romantic love. Two of my best friends are married and while they are best friends there is little passion there. They take joy in what they can in the hope that all will be made right in time.

 

As to polygamy I have some happy polygamous relationships in my family history. I would live it (or polyandry it that makes me look less like a sex fiend) if I had to but would rather not.

 

A rep point for the video.  I have never watched a single episode of Babylon 5.  This was amazing.  Pestilence.  Famine.  Death.  What?  Were those their real names, or their pet names?  LOL.

[Daniel2]

I read with interest those comments that assert that romantic love alone is not enough to sustain a marriage, and it is a notion I firmly agree with.

I also believe it's equally true that most of us today, whether straight or gay, hope to find a marriage that begins with and includes romantic love, hopefully sustained as much as possible throughout the course of our lives.

I think it would be misguided to suggest that gay couples' marriages are solely based on notions of romantic love.

Many same-sex couples are religious and/or spiritual, and many make religiously- and/or spiritually-based commitments before God, according to their beliefs about who/what God is.

Many of us raise children together, and are likewise bound by mutually-committed ties of family, father/motherhood, and find joy in our children and grandchildren.

All of us who are blessed enough to make it "till death do us part" will face the same care-giving relationship aspects that our aging, equally-blessed straight couples do when they endure to the end.

Like our straight counterparts, same-sex couples are faced with the challenges of life that include the same issues of "in sickness or health," "for richer or poorer," and the eventual aging and declines in health, sexuality, physical appearance, libido, etc. that are common to all human kind.

I submit that same-sex couples are just as capable of the deeper, more profound, lasting, caring, care-giving, parental, familial and committed love that grows out of and far beyond romantic love as our straight brothers and sisters are.

May we all be blessed to find and hold fast to such an all-encompassing love within our marriages.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Daniel2

[CV75]

May we all be blessed to find and hold fast to such an all-encompassing love within our marriages.

I only find that the romantic notion is that profound, lasting, caring, care-giving, parental, familial and committed love without the eternal covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations that are made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom [God has] appointed on the earth to hold this power (and [God has] appointed unto [His] servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), cannot be realized with any efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead.

 

After all the thread is about latter day revelation and applies to more than just this life's legal constructs.

Edited September 15, 2015 by CV75