JAHS Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 28 minutes ago, rockpond said: It sounds to me like you will find ways to defend the Brethren no matter what they do. I don't believe that there is any line they could cross that would be too far for you. Your actions are more reminiscent of blind obedience. That about sums it up for me; except for the blind part. I don't see it as blind obedience; just obedience. These guys have been around longer than I have with much more experience with the Gospel and with God. I simply trust them to do what is right; and since there are 15 of them making these decisions I know there is less likely a possibility they will do something wrong as a group that might hinder my progression.
Danzo Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 Just now, Bobbieaware said: This is one of the weakest statements in defense of a position I've ever seen on this board. They reach for the tiniest straws. 1
RevTestament Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 2 hours ago, Zakuska said: As far as its translated correcly... H6945 קָדֵשׁ qadesh (kaw-dashe') n-m. 1. a person set apart to idolatry (foreign gods). 2. (thus) "holy" only unto that idolatrous cult, but unholy to Yahweh. 3. (technically) a male shrine prostitute devoted to sexual idolatry. Basically there shall be no "prostitutes" among you (ie... those who give sex for money.) Says nothing about consentual loving sexually relations. Between those of opposite sex or same sex. Exspecially if they are legally married under the law. Uh huh. And how do you translate these: Leviticus 20:13 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. It is probably not coincidence that we find these words to the Romans as Roman men were known for having "boy servants."
consiglieri Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 44 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Oops, I thought it was from a book I read but that was another not quite as awesome quote. No one is entirely sure where that one came from. Much like my sig quote. Have you heard this one from a Norseman? Your God was nailed to a cross. My God has a hammer. You do the math.
Zakuska Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 19 minutes ago, The Nehor said: 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: This is not a good faith argument. There are countries where polygamy is legal, but that legality does not trump the Restored Gospel. The Law of Chastity has always, always pertained to one's spouse. Secular law which re-defines marriage in ways manifestly incompatible with the Church's doctrines (such as by legalizing polygamy, or by legalizing same-sex marriage) does not magically re-define the Church's position on the Law of Chastity. To suggest as much is to resort to sophistry. Bad faith. I know it. You know it. -Smac And there in lies the question smac97. According to the Church Policy book... the only reason Polygamy is enforced in the church in the US is because its against the Law of the Land. The policy specifically targets children of Polygamist who practice Polygamy where its against the Law. The Policy says exactly ZERO about people practicing Polygamy in a country where it is legal. Nor does church policy prohibit Polygamous posthumous marriages. D&C 132 makes it perfectly clear that the reason Abraham practiced Polygamy was because it was the LAW OF THE LAND that a barren woman was to give her hand maiden in marriage to her husband. Those laws where recently uncovered by Archeologist that Verifies this.
consiglieri Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 28 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: No one is forcing you to go to the great and spacious building The one next to the Salt Lake Temple where they sell high-end merchandise?
Danzo Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) 2 minutes ago, consiglieri said: What does that have to do with denying saving ordinances to children of gay people? Nothing No saving ordinances are being denied to children of gay people (or gay people themselves) Next question. Edited January 12, 2016 by Danzo
Avatar4321 Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 36 minutes ago, rockpond said: I also sustain them when they act in ways that are consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Having actively attended the temple for multiple decades, I am quite familiar with the law of chastity. I too hold it sacred. The policy has nothing to do with the law of chastity. It sounds to me like you will find ways to defend the Brethren no matter what they do. I don't believe that there is any line they could cross that would be too far for you. Your actions are more reminiscent of blind obedience. The policy has nothing to do with the law of chastity?!? Seriously?!
consiglieri Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 1 minute ago, Danzo said: Nothing No saving ordinances are being denied to children of gay people (or gay people themselves) Next question. So now baptism isn't a saving ordinance. How much must we reject in order to defend this policy revelation?
consiglieri Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 2 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: The policy has nothing to do with the law of chastity?!? Seriously?! Your spouse to whom you are legally and lawfully wed.
The Nehor Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 3 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Have you heard this one from a Norseman? Your God was nailed to a cross. My God has a hammer. You do the math. Yeah, but Thor is going down with Odin when the world ends in Ragnarok. My God comes down and burns the world personally. Checkmate Norseguy.
Zakuska Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 17 minutes ago, smac97 said: This is not a good faith argument. There are countries where polygamy is legal, but that legality does not trump the Restored Gospel. The Law of Chastity has always, always pertained to one's heterosexual spouse. At no point has the LDS Church ever recognized a same-sex marriage as one condoned or allowed by God or His Church. Secular law which re-defines marriage in ways manifestly incompatible with the Church's doctrines (such as by legalizing polygamy, or by legalizing same-sex marriage) does not magically re-define the Church's position on the Law of Chastity. To suggest as much is to resort to sophistry. Bad faith. I know it. You know it. -Smac Don't you mean "such as making Polygamy Ilegal"? If the Government of the United States Hadn't persecuted the church over Polygamy we would still be living it to day.
consiglieri Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 1 minute ago, The Nehor said: Yeah, but Thor is going down with Odin when the world ends in Ragnarok. My God comes down and burns the world personally. Checkmate Norseguy. But Loki is the trickster behind it all.
Avatar4321 Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 9 minutes ago, consiglieri said: What does that have to do with denying saving ordinances to children of gay people? No one is denying saving ordinances to anyone.
Zakuska Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: No one is denying saving ordinances to anyone. Lets suppose that a gay parent follows their obligations per the D&C and teaches their child they need to be baptized at age 8 but the church doesn't let them. If that child dies between the age of 8 and 18 who's fault is it that that child did not get baptized even though they where taught and wanted to? That would be the churches fault and the Lord will hold the leaders accountable for that. I'm sure glad I'm not in their position. Edited January 12, 2016 by Zakuska
smac97 Posted January 12, 2016 Author Posted January 12, 2016 3 minutes ago, Zakuska said: And there in lies the question smac97. According to the Church Policy book... the only reason Polygamy is enforced in the church in the US is because its against the Law of the Land. The policy specifically targets children of Polygamist who practice Polygamy where its against the Law. The Policy says exactly ZERO about people practicing Polygamy in a country where it is legal. Nor does church policy prohibit Polygamous posthumous marriages. D&C 132 makes it perfectly clear that the reason Abraham practiced Polygamy was because it was the LAW OF THE LAND that a barren woman was to give her hand maiden in marriage to her husband. Those laws where recently uncovered by Archeologist that Verifies this. First, the reason polygamy is prohibited in the Church is because the Brethren said so. The Church went through decades of strife about it, but ultimately agreed to comply with the law of the land. But that came as the result of revelation. So it is revelation that yielded the Church's current stance on polygamy. Second, the reference to polygamy being legal in some places, but still being prohibited in and not recognized by the Church, was an example. Likewise, same-sex marriage is prohibited in, and not recognized by the Church. So it is sophistry to say that The Law of Chastity does not apply to same-sex relationships because same-sex relationships are now legal under secular law. Thanks, -Smac
Danzo Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 10 minutes ago, consiglieri said: So now baptism isn't a saving ordinance. How much must we reject in order to defend this policy revelation? Baptism is a saving ordnance keep trying
smac97 Posted January 12, 2016 Author Posted January 12, 2016 9 minutes ago, consiglieri said: So now baptism isn't a saving ordinance. How much must we reject in order to defend this policy revelation? Baptism is not being denied. It is being delayed. There are many circumstances where the Church has required someone wanting to join the Church to delay doing so. Thanks, -Sac
smac97 Posted January 12, 2016 Author Posted January 12, 2016 12 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: The policy has nothing to do with the law of chastity?!? Seriously?! Right. People in a same-sex marriage are exempted from The Law of Chastity. And people who are in unhappy marriages are exempted from it, too! So a man who no longer feels affection for his wife is at liberty to disregard The Law of Chastity and step out on his wife. And a young unmarried couple in college who really, double-dog love each other are also exempted from The Law of Chastity as far as its prohibition against fornication. It's special exemptions all around! Or . . . not. The Law of Chastity applies to all of us. Adultery is prohibited. It doesn't matter if the adulterers really love each other, or if the married party is unhappy in his/her marriage. It also doesn't matter if adultery is legal under the secular law of the jurisdiction where the adulterers reside. Secular law does not govern such matters. Fornication is also prohibited under The Law of Chastity. It doesn't matter if the fornicators really love each other. It also doesn't matter if fornication is legal under the secular law of the jurisdiction where the fornicators reside. Secular law does not govern such matters. Same-sex conduct is also prohibited under The Law of Chastity. It doesn't matter if the couple really love each other. It also doesn't matter if the couple is in same-sex marriage sanctioned under the secular law of the jurisdiction where the couple resides. Secular law does not govern such matters. Thanks, -Smac
Zakuska Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: First, the reason polygamy is prohibited in the Church is because the Brethren said so. The Church went through decades of strife about it, but ultimately agreed to comply with the law of the land. But that came as the result of revelation. So it is revelation that yielded the Church's current stance on polygamy. Second, the reference to polygamy being legal in some places, but still being prohibited in and not recognized by the Church, was an example. Likewise, same-sex marriage is prohibited in, and not recognized by the Church. So it is sophistry to say that The Law of Chastity does not apply to same-sex relationships because same-sex relationships are now legal under secular law. Thanks, -Smac It's that supposed to be because the "Lord said so"?
smac97 Posted January 12, 2016 Author Posted January 12, 2016 16 minutes ago, Zakuska said: Don't you mean "such as making Polygamy Ilegal"? If the Government of the United States Hadn't persecuted the church over Polygamy we would still be living it to day. And if Herod hadn't been a threat to the baby Jesus, Joseph would not have taken Him and Mary into Egypt. But he did. The Lord guides His people as they navigate in the world around them. Meanwhile, The Law of Chastity prohibits same-sex conduct, regardless of whether such conduct is legal under secular law, or within a marriage recognized by secular law but not by the Church. There is no good faith counter-argument to this statement. Thanks, -Smac
CV75 Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 2 hours ago, Zakuska said: I think there's going to be quite a few people (our leaders included) who are going to get a rude awakening come resurection day.(Im probably one of them too) It will be like the Nephites when the Lord came and scolded them for not doing something he had told them to do earlier. What on earth is this supposed to mean with regards to the policy or the revelation confirming it as the mind and will of the Lord?
Danzo Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: Baptism is not being denied. It is being delayed. There are many circumstances where the Church has required someone wanting to join the Church to delay doing so. Thanks, -Sac Sometimes I think that this guy never was LDS. LDS doctrine is clear, everyone will have the opportunity to be baptized. This policy won't change that.
smac97 Posted January 12, 2016 Author Posted January 12, 2016 Just now, Zakuska said: It's that supposed to be because the "Lord said so"? "And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation." (D&C 68:4) "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." (D&C 1:38) Are you really *that* unfamiliar with LDS doctrines and beliefs? Or are you just playing games? Thanks, -Smac
Analytics Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 4 hours ago, rockpond said: It breaks my heart that the first time in my memory that a member of the 12 claimed direct revelation from God revealing His mind and will to the prophet was to enact a policy excluding gays and their children from full fellowship in the church. That's it. That's the prophetic revelation I've waited my whole life to hear? Well said. It is clear to me that the policy wasn't very well thought out. The Church would at least be consistent with itself if it just clarified and solidified the belief that having sex outside of heterosexual marriage is an infraction of the law of chastity, but this policy went beyond that and singled out gays and their families for special second-class status (e.g. if your parents were meth dealers that had sex with different partners every day of the week, you still wouldn't be required to wait until you were 18 and officially disavow their sins in order to get baptized). The fact that the official "clarification" of the policy backpedals from what the actual policy actually says proves the point. Claiming that it is a revelation seems like it is defensively doubling-down on a policy decision that wasn't thought out very well. Their call of course, but this isn't the kind of "great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God" that members have been waiting for. 3
Recommended Posts