Handbook Update, Gay Marriage, Apostasy, Resignations... (Merged Thread)

[carbon dioxide]

 The fact that Paul used "one wife" instead of "a Bishop must be married," (and I've looked at the Greek, and he could have merely said "married" instead of using the verbiage he did -- twice), suggests that Paul might have intended a monogamous marriage.   It is far from clear, and certainly one cannot say that the "biblical text supports no such claim."  I'd say, instead, that given the prevalence of polygamy amongst the Jews at the time, Paul could have been more clear if he intended to denounce the practice but he didn't.

I basically take it that Paul was saying to be a bishop one had to be married.  I don't see a real need for him to be addressing polygamy. Plus if he was addressing polygamy, I can take what Paul said if somebody is not a bishop, then they can have more than one wife. 

[carbon dioxide]

My point was that th NT does not support polygamy...

Unless one looks at the parable of the 10 virgins which is a parable which is all based on polygamy.

[JLHPROF]

Unless one looks at the parable of the 10 virgins which is a parable which is all based on polygamy.

 

I have heard the parable of the talents used in the same way.

And Mary & Martha and the better part.  Christ's relationship with Mary and Martha and Mary Magdalene is very clear to anyone with eyes to see.  (When I see the second picture in our Relief Society room at the chapel, I can't help but smile inside).

 

 

Edited November 29, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Tacenda]

Unless one looks at the parable of the 10 virgins which is a parable which is all based on polygamy.

CFR

[Tacenda]

I have heard the parable of the talents used in the same way.

And Mary & Martha and the better part. Christ's relationship with Mary and Martha and Mary Magdalene is very clear to anyone with eyes to see. (When I see the second picture in our Relief Society room at the chapel, I can't help but smile inside).

CFR

[JLHPROF]

CFR

 

Well, carbon is more than capable of answering a CFR, but what is the question here?  10 women waiting for one bridgegroom = polygamy, even in a symbolic parable.

[Tacenda]

Well, carbon is more than capable of answering a CFR, but what is the question here? 10 women waiting for one bridgegroom = polygamy, even in a symbolic parable.

CFR, again

[JAHS]

Unless one looks at the parable of the 10 virgins which is a parable which is all based on polygamy.

I have not heard anyone equate the ten virgins in this parable as women that were all brides to be of the bridegroom (ie polygamy); they were just ten women who were anticipating their attendance at the wedding feast that they were invited to.  I have heard them described as just being female attendants of the bride.  Jesus represents the Bridegroom. The ten virgins represent those who were professed believers in Christ. 

[JLHPROF]

CFR

 

Oh, I get one of my own?

 

If you're looking for "official church doctrine", the Church today claims no authoritative teaching.

But if you are looking for common sense and early Church teachings:

 

 

"Gentlemen, that is as plain as the translators, or different councils over this scripture, dare allow it to go to the world, but the thing is [35] there; it is told; Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee; and he told them what to do.

Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the World, then I will acknowledge I am in error."  Apostle Orson Hyde, J.D. 2:79, 80, 82

 

"I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children.

All that I have to say in reply to that charge is this—they worship a Savior that is too pure and holy to fulfil the commands of his Father. I worship one that is just pure and holy enough "to fulfil all righteousness;" not only the righteous law of baptism, but the still more righteous and important law "to multiply and replenish the earth." Startle not at this! for even the Father himself honored that law by coming down to Mary, without a natural body, and begetting a son; and if Jesus begat children, he only "did that which he had seen his Father do."  - Apostle Orson Hyde - JD 2:210

"It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the best of it.

I will venture to say that if Jesus Christ were now to pass through the most pious countries in Christendom with a train of women such as used to follow him, fondling about him, combing his hair, annointing him with precious ointment, washing his feet with tears, and wiping them with the hair of their heads and unmarried, or even married, he would be mobbed, tarred, and feathered, and rode not on an ***, but on a rail " Apostle Orson Hyde, J.D. 4:259

"This ancient philosopher says they were both John's wives. Paul says, "Mine answer to them that do examine me is this:—.Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas." He, according to Celsus, had a numerous train of wives.

The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based upon polygamy, according to the testimony of the philosophers who rose in that age. A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were "Mormons." - President Jedediah M. Grant - JD 1:346

 

President Joseph F. Smith . . . He spoke upon the marriage in Cana of Galilee. He thought Jesus was the Bridegroom and Mary and Martha the brides. He also referred to Luke 10th Chap., 34 42 verses. Also John 11th Chap., 2 & 5 verses, John 12:13. Joseph Smith spoke upon these passages to show that Mary and Martha manifested much closer relationship than merely a believer…. (Journal of Wilford Woodruff, July 22, 1883

 

He appeared first to these women, or at least to one of them—namely, Mary Magdalene. Now, it would be very natural for a husband in the resurrection to appear first to his own dear wives, and afterwards show himself to his other friends. If all the acts of Jesus were [54] written, we no doubt should learn that these beloved women were his wives. Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 159

 

Common sense principles:

 

1. The wedding at Cana - Traditional Jewish records explain that a “call” is usually made to the Bridegroom and his groomsmen when the wedding preparations are complete. Jewish traditions explain this call was made in the evening. We note, according to John, that Jesus was “called” to the wedding.

 

2. Numerous apocryphal texts refer to Christ as married - Gospel of Phillip, Gospel According to Thomas, etc

 

3. John 12:3-7 describes an ordinance performed by a wife to her husband to "claim" him in the resurrection

 

4. Christ seems to have been a Rabbi, and Talmudic law considers an unmarried man to be incomplete and little better than a murderer.

 

The Rev. Dr. William Phipps, writing in the current issue of the Journal of Ecumenical Studies said that failure to marry and reproduce was regarded a serious sin in Biblical times.

Under Talmudic law, a man couldn’t be considered righteous—in fact, couldn’t even be considered a complete man—if he didn’t marry and have children,” Dr. Phipps writes.

“The Talmud asserts very strongly… that it’s almost the same as committing murder to not reproduce.”

 

5. Luke 10:40 - what a strange item to bring to your house guest...

 

6. Mary refers to Christ as "Master" and "Rabboni", both forms of address used by wives towards husbands.

Edited November 29, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

For women, I can't understand the things I'd be giving up.  The only thing I think it could be is to live with HF again.  But really so far if I believe as the non LDS Christian does, God is Jesus.  And I believe Jesus will be in the lower kingdoms.  And has shown up for those having NDE. 

Those who are in the lesser kingdoms of Glory will be there because they cannot accept all that God is, so they will not be fully one with God...whether or not they can be in the presence of Christ.

[Tacenda]

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=barb+young+youtube+of+affirmation+2013&FORM=VIRE1#view=detail&mid=86FA0830A55C25A3C8BC86FA0830A55C25A3C8BC

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=barb+young+youtube+of+affirmation+2013&FORM=VIRE3#view=detail&mid=68F30FAA465039A8647768F30FAA465039A86477

Two of the best videos I've seen, concerning LGBT's.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think you need to concede anything. The Book of Mormon was meant for our day. The Nephites and Lamanites never had the book, as President Benson pointed out. That means its content, whatever the origen, was preserved for us. Furthermore, the counsel in Jacob regarding plural marriage, has repeatedly been given modern application by authoritative Church leaders.

What? Are we going to begin now to doubt the relevance of other Book of Mormon doctrinal treatments now because they were uttered by local prophets to indigenous congregations?

Upon further consideration, I must concede the Lord"s commandment to the Nephites to eschew polygamy and practice only strict monogamy was given specifically to father Lehi and meant particularly for Lehi's immediate children and their descendants. But whatever the Lord"s actual default position might be when it comes to marriage -- whether it be to normally permit his people to practice polygamy or to usually forbid it -- the fact of the matter is that there are times when the Lord commands his people to practice polygamy and there are times when he commands them (not just the literal descendants of Lehi) to practice strict monogamy. We just happen to be living in one of those "monogamy only" periods and we have been commanded to abide by that divine edict since the end of the 19th century. So today's Latter-day Saints are just like the Nephites, a people of God commanded by prophets to live under a divine dispensation of strict monogamy.

And since, according to the parable of the olive tree, beyond Lehi's group there were several other branches of the house of Israel who were, by God's command, led out of the Holy Land at the same time to set up righteous outposts of Israel in various locations throughout the world, I have every reason to expect they too were commanded to practice strict monogamy in marriage for the same reason the Nephites were: because the wicked inhabitants of the Holy Land had made an unholy mess of virtually everything, including the impure and unholy way they practiced plural marriage, a holy commandment that degenerated into little more than whoredoms (examples of which were pointed to by the Book of Mormon prophet Jacob when he singled out David's and Solomon's abuses of polygamy as whoredoms) and the Lord very likely didn't want to risk that the newly scattered branches of Israel would end up in the same sorry apostate situation as the pre-exile Jews.

I don't think you need to concede anything. The Book of Mormon was meant for our day. The Nephites and Lamanites never had the book, as President Benson pointed out. That means its content, whatever the origen, was preserved for us. Furthermore, the counsel in Jacob regarding plural marriage, has repeatedly been given modern application by authoritative Church leaders.

What? Are we going to begin now to doubt the relevance of other Book of Mormon doctrinal treatments because they were uttered by local prophets to indigenous congregations?

Edited November 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

But if one is not comfortable living a celestial life they may prefer telestial life.

I'm not living a celestial life right now. I don't think any of us are. That doesn't mean I don't have aspirations to do so in a time to come.

Think of it this way: If it pertains to someone I truly love and care about, will I be content with his/her assertions that he/she is just not cut out for eternal exaltation, or will I try to do what I can to expand his/her vision as a motivator?

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, but non-Mormon Scott Woodward did not debunk that folklore. Instead, he gave it legs.

ETA: correct LDS status of Scott Woodward.

It already had legs. He applied some perspective to it (or rather, Holzapfel did) by tracing the provenance of the alleged quotation. Edited November 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Sorry.  You are right.  I was thinking of reporter Bob Woodward.

Thanks.

You mean of Watergate, "All the President's Men" fame? The notion that he would be writing about Mormon theology strikes me as odd.

[Senator]

I don't think you need to concede anything. The Book of Mormon was meant for our day. The Nephites and Lamanites never had the book, as President Benson pointed out. That means its content, whatever the origen, was preserved for us. Furthermore, the counsel in Jacob regarding plural marriage, has repeatedly been given modern application by authoritative Church leaders.

What? Are we going to begin now to doubt the relevance of other Book of Mormon doctrinal treatments now because they were uttered by local prophets to indigenous congregations?

 

I'm sorry Robert,

 

It was a brave effort, though.

[Bobbieaware]

I don't think you need to concede anything. The Book of Mormon was meant for our day. The Nephites and Lamanites never had the book, as President Benson pointed out. That means its content, whatever the origen, was preserved for us. Furthermore, the counsel in Jacob regarding plural marriage, has repeatedly been given modern application by authoritative Church leaders.

What? Are we going to begin now to doubt the relevance of other Book of Mormon doctrinal treatments because they were uttered by local prophets to indigenous congregations?

Jacob's teachings on marriage certainly are applicable to our day. We Latter-day Saints are living under an edict very similar the one Lehi was commanded to give to his people: Polygyny at times, when the Lord commands it; and monogamy most of the time, after the Lord rescinds His previous commandment to practice polygyny. To me, it's not by happenstance we are now living under the commandment to practice strict monogamy, just as the Nephites on this same promised land were also so commanded. For the growth of the Church would have come to a screeching halt if the Lord had not commanded his prophet to end polygyny when he did. And by living under today's commandment to practice strict monogamy, the people of today's Church are better able identify with the Nephites and liken the great Nephite book of holy scripture unto ourselves.

[Teancum]

Those who are in the lesser kingdoms of Glory will be there because they cannot accept all that God is, so they will not be fully one with God...whether or not they can be in the presence of Christ.

I thought those who would be in the celestial kingdom meet requirements outline se in D&C 76 and I am not sure accepting all God is, whatever that really means, is outlined there.

[Senator]

 And by living under today's commandment to practice strict monogamy, the people of today's Church are better able identify with the Nephites and liken the great Nephite book of holy scripture unto ourselves.

Accept for the fact that the reasons for the rescindments were entirely different.

 

I suppose if God had rescinded the church's contemporary command on polygamy due to the sins and failures (abominations) of its practitioners, then yes we would have much in common.

 

Imagine how different the landscape would be, if that were the case.

Edited November 29, 2015 by Senator

[Scott Lloyd]

Accept for the fact that the reasons for the rescindments were entirely different.

 

I suppose if God had rescinded the church's contemporary command on polygamy due to the sins and failures (abominations) of its practitioners, then yes we would have much in common.

 

Imagine how different the landscape would be, if that were the case.

I think Bobbieaware made a compelling case that they were not "entirely different" but that the similarities are striking.

[Senator]

I think Bobbieaware made a compelling case that they were not "entirely different" but that the similarities are striking.

Given that the context for the discontinuations were vastly different, I don't find the similarities all that striking.

So I would have to disagree.

[ERayR]

I'm not living a celestial life right now. I don't think any of us are. That doesn't mean I don't have aspirations to do so in a time to come.

Think of it this way: If it pertains to someone I truly love and care about, will I be content with his/her assertions that he/she is just not cut out for eternal exaltation, or will I try to do what I can to expand his/her vision as a motivator?

I am not arguing that.  What we are doing is preparing to live a Celestial life and some will find it beyond their comfort zone thus we have some place else for them to go.  Terrestrial and Telestial.

[Scott Lloyd]

I am not arguing that.  What we are doing is preparing to live a Celestial life and some will find it beyond their comfort zone thus we have some place else for them to go.  Terrestrial and Telestial.

Well, that seems to be begging the question (and I use that phrase in its proper sense).

 

If something is beyond my comfort zone now, that doesn't mean I won't regret later not having stretched myself a bit when it becomes clear I could have attained something for desirable having done so.

Edited November 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Given that the context for the discontinuations were vastly different, I don't find the similarities all that striking.

So I would have to disagree.

How are they "vastly different"? That's not self-evident.

 

(Though I must acknowledge you seem to be softening your stance: You have gone from "entirely different" to "vastly different.")

Edited November 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

Well, that seems to be begging the question (and I use that phrase in its proper sense).

 

If something is beyond my comfort zone now, that doesn't mean I won't regret later not having stretched myself a bit when it becomes clear I could have attained something desirable having done so.

 

I am not arguing that.  I don't see that we have a difference.  Maybe i am restricting my view a little.  I do see what you are saying.