Zakuska Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: 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 CFR. The law of chastity says exactly nothing about same sex relations. The bretheren go beyond the scriptures and start mincing words when they try and elimnate Homosexual "spouses" from the definition. Yes I know they teach that Homosexual relations are against the law of Chasity but I disagree with their assement. However, I will defer and alow them to fall in the ditch of their own making. Quote The law of chastity is a moral code defined by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). According to the church,chastity means abstinence from sexual relations before marriage, and complete fidelity to one's spouse during marriage. Edited January 12, 2016 by Zakuska
Zakuska Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: "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 God's servants also include "Secular Governors". Or don't you agree with the Church teaching that God set up secular Goverments? D&C 134:1. “Governments Were Instituted of God for the Benefit of Man” Romans 9 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." Edited January 12, 2016 by Zakuska
Danzo Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 4 minutes ago, Zakuska said: The law of chastity says exactly nothing about same sex relations. Sorry, but it does In the temple as well as other places. "no sexual relations except legally and lawfully married" The "legally and Lawfully" refers to gods law, not the Oregon Revised Statutes. 1
Zakuska Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Danzo said: Sorry, but it does In the temple as well as other places. "no sexual relations except legally and lawfully married" The "legally and Lawfully" refers to gods law, not the Oregon Revised Statutes. According to the laws of the Land Gay couples are Legally and Lawefully Married. For it to be "in the Temple" as you pretended it would need to say... "Legally and Lawefully Sealed". Or are you under the false impresion that we perform "seculare weddings" in our temples? Edited January 12, 2016 by Zakuska
Danzo Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 38 minutes ago, consiglieri said: The one next to the Salt Lake Temple where they sell high-end merchandise? Going off topic is evidence one is losing the argument. 1
Danzo Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 34 minutes ago, Zakuska said: 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. Except they still will have the opportunity to be baptized. You really need to read the scriptures more.
Calm Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Danzo said: Sorry, but it does In the temple as well as other places. "no sexual relations except legally and lawfully married" The "legally and Lawfully" refers to gods law, not the Oregon Revised Statutes. I suspect that the "legally" applies to man's law and "lawfully" applies to God's. Why would it need to be repeated if the words meant the same thing? And it has to be both at this time. Edited January 12, 2016 by Calm 2
Danzo Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Zakuska said: According to the laws of the Land Gay couples are Legally and Lawefully Married. For it to be "in the Temple" as you pretended it would need to say... "Legally and Lawefully Sealed". Or are you under the false impresion that we perform "seculare weddings" in our temples? My marriage secular license was signed by the temple sealer. Edited January 12, 2016 by Danzo
Zakuska Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 1 minute ago, Danzo said: Except they still will have the opportunity to be baptized. You really need to read the scriptures more. When they are 18. If they die before that 18 the sin will be on the heads of the Bretheren. Because the parents taught them they needed baptism at the age of 8 fulfilled their obligations. The bretheren are the ones who are porhibiting them from being baptized before 18 not the parents or the child.
Danzo Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 8 minutes ago, Zakuska said: According to the laws of the Land Gay couples are Legally and Lawefully Married. For it to be "in the Temple" as you pretended it would need to say... "Legally and Lawefully Sealed". Or are you under the false impresion that we perform "seculare weddings" in our temples? When I said "In the temple" I was referring to where it (the law of chastity) is defined, not where the marriage took place
Danzo Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 4 minutes ago, Calm said: I suspect that the "legally" applies to man's law and "lawfully" applies to God's. Why would it need to be repeated if the words meant the same thing? And it has to be both at this time. It astounds me that posters here can say with a straight face that the law of chastity can e redefined by the whims of judges and politicians that are not sustained as church leaders, but church leaders have no say or ability to receive revelation on the subject.
Danzo Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 6 minutes ago, Zakuska said: When they are 18. If they die before that 18 the sin will be on the heads of the Bretheren. Because the parents taught them they needed baptism at the age of 8 fulfilled their obligations. The bretheren are the ones who are porhibiting them from being baptized before 18 not the parents or the child. Even if they die. Read the scriptures, try D&C 137 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 1 minute ago, Danzo said: Even if they die. Read the scriptures, try D&C 137 So true. Joseph Smith saw his brother Alvin in the Celestial Kingdom and he never got baptized in his earthly life.
Calm Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) weird dups becaus of ipad bombing, sorry Edited January 12, 2016 by Calm
Calm Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Zakuska said: When they are 18. If they die before that 18 the sin will be on the heads of the Bretheren. Because the parents taught them they needed baptism at the age of 8 fulfilled their obligations. The bretheren are the ones who are porhibiting them from being baptized before 18 not the parents or the child. There is much more involved in the obligations of teaching than just convincing a child they need baptism. I am curious, Zak. In the case of a child or spouse desiring baptism, but a parent or spouse refuses to give their acceptance/permission for the ordinance, do you still hold the Church in part responsible? Fully? Not at all? Edited January 12, 2016 by Calm
omni Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I'm afraid you're going to find what I'm about to say troubling, but I mean it in the best possible spirit. Rather than allowing this to be a catalyst for your leaving the Church, perhaps what you should do is let it occasion some very serious soul-searching on your part, including entertaining the possibility that it is you that has been wrong all along on this matter. It will ultimately be your choice, of course, but if I were in a similar situation -- if I were on the verge of leaving the Church because I didn't like an action that had been taken by its leaders -- I would hope I would do some heavy duty introspection before departing and drawing my family along with me. You asked for advice; this is mine. I would hope someone would care enough to be as direct with me were I in a similar situation. I apologize if Rockpond has already responded to you, but what makes you think he hasn't done some heavy duty introspection? Rockpond does not strike me as someone who is rash or impulsive and clearly this issue (homosexuality within the church) has troubled him for some time. While I don't know Rockpond personally, I have no doubt this is something he's spent a great deal of time pondering and praying about. Whatever direction he decides to go, I wish him the best. 3
Avatar4321 Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 57 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 like having died before the restoration. For some that delay has been thousands of years. But apparently despite that it's an unforgiveable sin to wait until age 18? 1
Russell C McGregor Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 47 minutes ago, Zakuska said: God's servants also include "Secular Governors". Or don't you agree with the Church teaching that God set up secular Goverments? D&C 134:1. “Governments Were Instituted of God for the Benefit of Man” The notion that politicians are those whom the Lord has anointed to reveal His will to His children is a startling one. And utterly contrary to LDS doctrine. 1
smac97 Posted January 12, 2016 Author Posted January 12, 2016 5 minutes ago, omni said: I apologize if Rockpond has already responded to you, but what makes you think he hasn't done some heavy duty introspection? Rockpond does not strike me as someone who is rash or impulsive and clearly this issue (homosexuality within the church) has troubled him for some time. While I don't know Rockpond personally, I have no doubt this is something he's spent a great deal of time pondering and praying about. Whatever direction he decides to go, I wish him the best. I think the perception that he had not introspected about this arose from the fact that he announced his departure from the Church within about an hour of hearing about Elder Nelson's talk. But as he said, Elder Nelson's talk was "a bridge too far." In any event, let us refrain from speculating about RP or personalizing this thread. Thanks, -Smac 1
Zakuska Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 11 minutes ago, Calm said: There is much more involved in the obligations of teaching than just convincing a child they need baptism. I am curious, Zak. In the case of a child or spouse desiring baptism, but a parent or spouse refuses to give their acceptance/permission for the ordinance, do you still hold the Church in part responsible? Fully? Not at all? I would say that's the spouse withholding permission that would be held accountable. In the case of many of the people who are having issues with this Policy two gay parents are giving permmision and its the church who is delaying it.
CV75 Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 2 hours ago, rockpond said: We can't have a true dialogue if you are unwilling to answer fair questions. I'll ask again: Is there any line that the Brethren could cross that would make you "check out"? Or does it not matter, you'll sustain them regardless? Perhaps the answer is too uncomfortable for you. True dialogue? You have obviously already answered this question for yourself, but this is not a question the Lord asks His people. Rather, He asks such things as, “What will ye that I shall give unto you?” and “What is it that ye desire of me?” and “What manner of men ought ye to be?” He only asks us, “Will ye also go away?” when others have answered their own question, “This is an hard saying; who can hear it?” by murmuring and walking no more with Him. It is a question that those who murmur and walk away ask the faithful who remain, but it is so antithetical to the Lord's questions that there is no acknowledgement of its validity.
Russell C McGregor Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) 57 minutes ago, Zakuska said: CFR. The law of chastity says exactly nothing about same sex relations. The bretheren go beyond the scriptures and start mincing words when they try and elimnate Homosexual "spouses" from the definition. Yes I know they teach that Homosexual relations are against the law of Chasity but I disagree with their assement. However, I will defer and alow them to fall in the ditch of their own making. Since the Church's definition of Chastity was settled long before same sex "marriage" even started to be a lunatic fringe fantasy, the claim that the brethren are trying to "elimnate" [sic] homosexual "spouses" is glaringly counterfactual. Homosexual "spouses" were never included in order to be eliminated. Do you really not understand something so elementary? Edited January 12, 2016 by Russell C McGregor Spelling
smac97 Posted January 12, 2016 Author Posted January 12, 2016 3 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: The notion that politicians are those whom the Lord has anointed to reveal His will to His children is a startling one. And utterly contrary to LDS doctrine. If I were to respond to Zak's citation of scripture with "Give a wrest, Zak!", I would not be misspelling anything. -Smac 1
Zakuska Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: The notion that politicians are those whom the Lord has anointed to reveal His will to His children is a startling one. And utterly contrary to LDS doctrine. So you disagree with the Lord then... Romans 9 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." God raised Pharoah to proclaim his Might and Name to the nations. Edited January 12, 2016 by Zakuska
Recommended Posts