JLHPROF Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 I very much like a quotation from Brigham Young that I have used frequently in teaching and discussion:"I think it has been taught by some that as we lay our bodies down, they will so rise again in the resurrection with all the impediments and imperfections that they had here; and that if a wife does not love her husband in this state she cannot love him in the next. This is not so. Those who attain to the blessing of the first or celestial resurrection will be pure and holy, and perfect in body. Every man and woman that reaches to this unspeakable attainment will be as beautiful as the angels that surround the throne of God. If you can, by faithfulness in this life, obtain the right to come up in the morning of the resurrection, you need entertain no fears that the wife will be dissatisfied with her husband, or the husband with the wife; for those of the first resurrection will be free from sin and from the consequences and power of sin. This body “is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.” “And as we have borne the image of the earthly, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.” Love this quote. And I agree with the doctrinal principle behind it. Although, when my parents divorced my father actually used this quote to say she would change her mind in the next life when she saw his sinless resurrection and his faults removed...sometimes it IS misapplied. Or maybe it was this one from Brigham:" You may inquire, in case a wife becomes disaffected with her husband, her affections lost, she becomes alienated from him and wishes to be the wife of another, can she not leave him? I know of no law in heaven or on earth by which she can be made free while her husband remains faithful and magnifies his priesthood before God and he is not disposed to put her away, she having done nothing worthy of being put away. If that disaffected wife could behold the transcendent beauty of person, the godlike qualities of the resurrected husband she now despises, her love for him would be unbounded and unutterable. Instead of despising him she would feel like worshipping him, he is so holy, so pure, so perfect and so filled with God in his resurrected body. There will be no disaffection of this kind in the resurrection of the just." Same principle though. But I still believe agency exists and not even being perfect in our resurrections will make people want to be with each other.But I also think that physical weaknesses will be removed.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 (edited) Love this quote. And I agree with the doctrinal principle behind it. Although, when my parents divorced my father actually used this quote to say she would change her mind in the next life when she saw his sinless resurrection and his faults removed...sometimes it IS misapplied. Or maybe it was this one from Brigham:" You may inquire, in case a wife becomes disaffected with her husband, her affections lost, she becomes alienated from him and wishes to be the wife of another, can she not leave him? I know of no law in heaven or on earth by which she can be made free while her husband remains faithful and magnifies his priesthood before God and he is not disposed to put her away, she having done nothing worthy of being put away. If that disaffected wife could behold the transcendent beauty of person, the godlike qualities of the resurrected husband she now despises, her love for him would be unbounded and unutterable. Instead of despising him she would feel like worshipping him, he is so holy, so pure, so perfect and so filled with God in his resurrected body. There will be no disaffection of this kind in the resurrection of the just." Same principle though. But I still believe agency exists and not even being perfect in our resurrections will make people want to be with each other.But I also think that physical weaknesses will be removed.My faith gives me unbounded confidence that after a faithful and righteous man has been exalted in the celestial kingdom, whomever he ends up with as a partner will be absolutely perfect for him -- and he for her. As for agency, I can't imagine not wanting to be with a woman -- any woman -- who has achieved exaltation and acquired the divine traits appertaining thereto. As Brother Brigham puts it, she will be "as beautiful as the angels that surround the throne of God." Edited November 25, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Zakuska Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 (edited) The Bibilical law of Witnesses. Matt 18:1616 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 2 Cor 13:1(and as the Scriptures say, "The facts of every case must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses"). We have 4 witnesses.-Bible - Homosexuality a sin-BOM - Silent-D&C - Silent-POGP - Silentt We're on pretty shakey ground if we are going to be using an unreliable (ie Mistranslated) witness to condemn "Homosexuality" with. Edited November 25, 2015 by Zakuska
JLHPROF Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 The Bibilical law of Witnesses. Matt 18:1616 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 2 Cor 13:1(and as the Scriptures say, "The facts of every case must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses"). We have 4 witnesses.-Bible - Homosexuality a sin-BOM - Silent-D&C - Silent-POGP - Silentt We're on pretty shakey ground if we are going to be using an unreliable (ie Mistranslated) witness to condemn "Homosexuality" with. Really - bit of a stretch of logic isn't it.A better one might be:Old Testament/Covenant - Homosexuality a sinNew Testament/Covenant - Homosexuality a sin And either way, when it comes to homosexuality we are better served by understanding WHY it violates God's laws and should not be embraced instead of assigning some guilt and blame for the act. That's the same with all sin. It's not about punishing the wicked, but about teaching the righteous correct principles.
KevinG Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 My faith gives me unbounded confidence that after a faithful and righteous man has been exalted in the celestial kingdom, whomever he ends up with as a partner will be absolutely perfect for him -- and he for her. As for agency, I can't imagine not wanting to be with a woman -- any woman -- who has achieved exaltation and acquired the divine traits appertaining thereto. As Brother Brigham puts it, she will be "as beautiful as the angels that surround the throne of God." An eternal marriage is not reduced down to who is sexually compatible. On the other side of that coin- I don't think all eternal relationships have to be marriage.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 (edited) An eternal marriage is not reduced down to who is sexually compatible. On the other side of that coin- I don't think all eternal relationships have to be marriage.But let me be clear that it is my conviction those who are sealed together for eternity as husband and wife will be perfectly compatible in every -- and I do mean every -- respect. Edited to add: At sacrament meeting on Sunday, I heard a noteworthy quote from Elder Robert D. Hales's talk at October general conference: None of us marry perfection; we marry potential. Edited November 25, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Zakuska Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 (edited) Really - bit of a stretch of logic isn't it.A better one might be:Old Testament/Covenant - Homosexuality a sinNew Testament/Covenant - Homosexuality a sin And either way, when it comes to homosexuality we are better served by understanding WHY it violates God's laws and should not be embraced instead of assigning some guilt and blame for the act. That's the same with all sin. It's not about punishing the wicked, but about teaching the righteous correct principles. Unfortunately that's not how God setup the Witnesses for our generation. 2 Nephi 29 Explains this law very precisely culminating in this... 8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimoney of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimoney of the two nations shall run together also. The Bible is the Stick of Judah... one Nation.The Book of Mormon is the Stick of Ephraim ... second Nation.The D&C is a third witness... a witness of the Gentile Nations. (JS and the early saints being from the gentile nations) If the Bible is telling us somethings that can't be cooberated by the other two nations testimony. Maybe we'd better be looking at the reason why. Maybe those things in conflict aren't something God actually said. IOW, If he never told the Nephite Nation Homosexuality was a sin... why did he tell the Nation on the other side of the planet it was, If he claims to give the same words to both nations? Edited November 25, 2015 by Zakuska 1
Teancum Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 (edited) Your response is incomplete.If it is OK for Jesus to have posed a counter-question in His dialogue with others, why is it necessarily unfair or dodgy for others -- particularly those who are committed to following the example He set -- to use that technique?It is not self-evident that my argument is "ridiculous" and "stupid." Your assertion does not make it so.So now we have two unsubstantiated assertions from you. And as I've said in the past, an assertion or accusation without substantiation collapses from its own vacuity.I'm left to conclude that you don't like my comparison with the behavior of Jesus because it soundly rebuts your unsubstantiated assertion that posing a counter-question in dialogue is necessarily unfair and dodgy.Thanks for playing.rGive it a rest Scott, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. You win. Happy now? I hope you are enjoying yourself. Edited November 25, 2015 by Teancum
Mystery Meat Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 Unfortunately that's not how God setup the Witnesses for our generation. 2 Nephi 29 Explains this law very precisely culminating in this... 8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimoney of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimoney of the two nations shall run together also. The Bible is the Stick of Judah... one nation.The Book of Mormon is the Stick of Ephraim ... second Nation.The D&C is a third witness... a witness of the Gentile nations. (JS and the early saints being from the gentile nations) If the Bible is telling us somethings that can't be cooberated by the other two nations testimony. Maybe we'd better be looking at the reason why. Maybe those things in conflict aren't something God actually said. IOW, If he never told the Nephite Nation Homosexuality was a sin... why did he tell the Nation on the other side of the planet it was, If he claims to give the same Gospel to both nations? How about all the witnesses we have from modern prophets and apostles? Do they not count? Your constant twisting of scripture to try (and fail) to justify homosexuality is nothing more than mental gymnastics. 4
Zakuska Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 (edited) How about all the witnesses we have from modern prophets and apostles? Do they not count? Your constant twisting of scripture to try (and fail) to justify homosexuality is nothing more than mental gymnastics. Modern Prophets are supposed to be followings Gods law of Witnesses Layed out in scripture. Apparently their not doing that. Edited November 25, 2015 by Zakuska
Scott Lloyd Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 (edited) Deleted in view of Teancum's concession Edited November 25, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 Modern Prophets are supposed to be followings Gods law of Witnesses Layed out in scripture. Apparently their not doing that.So their own testimony does not count as a witness, then. Mental gymnastics, just as Mystery Meat said. 2
Mystery Meat Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 Modern Prophets are supposed to be followings Gods law of Witnesses Layed out in scripture. Apparently their not doing that. Modern Prophets are called to testify of Christ and preach repentance. They are not limited to what is contained in the Old and New Testaments, the Book of Mormon, the POG or the D&C. 1
Mystery Meat Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 rGive it a rest Scott, you are making a mountain out of a molehill.You win. Happy now?I hope you are enjoying yourself. Now you know how the rest of us feel. 1
Jeanne Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 To conceive of that requires the realization that we will not always be subject to the limitations of mortality. I firmly believe (and I have statements of Church leaders to back me up) that same-sex attraction is a disorder that will not last beyond mortality. Thereafter, if the husband and wife are true and faithful to the gospel principles, they will be so attractive and appealing to each other that what you have expressed above will cease to be a concern. I very much like a quotation from Brigham Young that I have used frequently in teaching and discussion:Okay..just so I am not misunderstanding..here is a question. A gay person lives and loves his/her same sex spouse. When this person dies, he may cease to have physical feelings of same sex..but does he cease to love and know that person. I am assuming as always taught that we will remember this life..
Scott Lloyd Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 (edited) Okay..just so I am not misunderstanding..here is a question. A gay person lives and loves his/her same sex spouse. When this person dies, he may cease to have physical feelings of same sex..but does he cease to love and know that person. I am assuming as always taught that we will remember this life..At the risk of making Teancum apoplectic, I will respond to this with a counter-question: Is being involved with a person in a marital/sexual relationship essential to knowing and loving that person? I'm expecting that in the hereafter I will know and love countless individuals; I expect to be united to only one in a marital relationship. Edited November 25, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Bob Crockett Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 (edited) Okay..just so I am not misunderstanding..here is a question. A gay person lives and loves his/her same sex spouse. When this person dies, he may cease to have physical feelings of same sex..but does he cease to love and know that person. I am assuming as always taught that we will remember this life.. Let me respond with a similar question. An adulterer loves and has relations with his paramour, who may be of the same sex or opposite sex. He doesn't tell his lawful spouse (or, alternatively, does tell his lawful spouse and leaves his family to live with his paramour). When this person's paramour dies the person ceases to be an adulterer. Does he cease to love and know that paramour, and does God give him credit for being in a loving and committed relationship with his paramour? Edited November 25, 2015 by Bob Crockett
Jeanne Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 Let me respond with a similar question. An adulterer loves and has relations with his paramour, who may be of the same sex or opposite sex. He doesn't tell his lawful spouse (or, alternatively, does tell his lawful spouse and leaves his family to live with his paramour). When this person's paramour dies the person ceases to be an adulterer. Does he cease to love and know that paramour, and does God give him credit for being in a loving and committed relationship with his paramour?I am thinking that God does not give him credit..(probably) but I think he could still love someone who USED to be his paramour. Of course I am talking im the spirit of human nature..not eternal because eternity is way too hard for me to comprehend.
Calm Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 (edited) Than you for your reply. I respect your thoughts on this. But....if sexuality changes after death, why would mortals have these feelings?When we are resurrected, those exalted who will remain as eternal companions won't need strong physical drives to convince them getting married is worth the cost of the independent life. Mortals aren't as perceptive and are often selfish, putting their own immediate desires over the desires and needs of their mates and children. Thus the sexual drive is often a promoter for first marriage and then sticking around to help raise children.Add-on: my apologies if you weren't talking about sexuality in general, in the middle of major housecleaning and I didn't reread older posts. Edited November 25, 2015 by Calm
Jeanne Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 When we are resurrected, those exalted who will remain as eternal companions won't need strong physical drives to convince them getting married is worth the cost of the independent life. Mortals aren't as perceptive and are often selfish, putting their own immediate desires over the desires and needs of their mates and children. Thus the sexual drive is often a promoter for first marriage and then sticking around to help raise children.Okay. I understand what you guys are saying now. I have a hard time detaching my earthly feelings to the said perception of eternal companionship. Thanks all of you for taking the time to respond. Happy Thanksgiving! 1
Zakuska Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 (edited) So their own testimony does not count as a witness, then. Mental gymnastics, just as Mystery Meat said. Modern Prophets are called to testify of Christ and preach repentance. They are not limited to what is contained in the Old and New Testaments, the Book of Mormon, the POG or the D&C. Shouldn't they as well as us be looking at our scriptures for guidance and restraint? Isaiah 8:19-2019 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. A living spirit guided prophet is not above the Laws of God or his written words. The only way President Monson or any one of the 15 or them all together can disavow themselves of not following the scripture and claim Authority is this. Number 12With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the LORD. Otherwise they hold no more Authority than Aaron and Miriam. Joseph Smith is on par with Moses because he saw the face of God just like Moses. Have anyone of the 12 caimed to have seen God? Edited November 25, 2015 by Zakuska
JAHS Posted November 25, 2015 Author Posted November 25, 2015 Unfortunately that's not how God setup the Witnesses for our generation. 2 Nephi 29 Explains this law very precisely culminating in this... 8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimoney of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimoney of the two nations shall run together also. The Bible is the Stick of Judah... one Nation.The Book of Mormon is the Stick of Ephraim ... second Nation.The D&C is a third witness... a witness of the Gentile Nations. (JS and the early saints being from the gentile nations) If the Bible is telling us somethings that can't be cooberated by the other two nations testimony. Maybe we'd better be looking at the reason why. Maybe those things in conflict aren't something God actually said. IOW, If he never told the Nephite Nation Homosexuality was a sin... why did he tell the Nation on the other side of the planet it was, If he claims to give the same words to both nations? People act as if the words of Jesus recorded in the Bible are the only things he ever said. Jesus said to his disciples:"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. (John 16: 12) He never had time to tell His apostles what those many things were before He was crucified. Perhaps we can bear them now and that is why we have latter-day prophets to help us know God's will about things like homosexuality and gay marriage; a subject that would never even have come up during the time He was on the earth.
Teancum Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 Now you know how the rest of us feel. No I don't know. How do you feel?
Teancum Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 (edited) At the risk of making Teancum apoplectic, I will respond to this with a counter-question:Apoplectic? Hardly. You are the one who seems not able I to let this go and you personall attack me in a post I have nothing to do with.I made one post...one... Where I challenged the poster and proposes she avoided the questions by asking questions. And now you rant on and on and on. Even in a post that had nothing t do with me. What's with you Scott? Give it a rest. Edited November 25, 2015 by Teancum
Scott Lloyd Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 People act as if the words of Jesus recorded in the Bible are the only things he ever said. Jesus said to his disciples:"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. (John 16: 12) He never had time to tell His apostles what those many things were before He was crucified. Perhaps we can bear them now and that is why we have latter-day prophets to help us know God's will about things like homosexuality and gay marriage; a subject that would never even have come up during the time He was on the earth.I always like to bring out this passage when encountering someone who has the if-it's-not-in-the-Bible-it-didn't-happen mindset: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. (John 21:25)
Recommended Posts