The Nehor Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 5 hours ago, Teancum said: What you should say is "Marriage according to the gospel I believe...." See not everyone thinks you have the true gospel. I refuse to alter the way I speak to coddle morons with inferiority complexes. 1
rockpond Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 16 hours ago, Rivers said: No. Those things are not breaking the law of chastity. 15 hours ago, The Nehor said: Yep. There will not be any form of equality between the two types of relationships. Sorry. So Elder Holland was incorrect when he said that it is about chastity, not gender. Gender changes the requirements. A boy and a girl can go to a stake dance, hold hands, slow dance in each others' arms. A boy and a boy cannot. 3
Five Solas Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 On 3/9/2016 at 5:38 AM, Monster said: Its about control. When the church loses control over the sexual habits of its believers it has lost much of its leverage. That is a hard statement. But I suspect many LDS males who endured "worthiness interviews"--especially in their teenage years--wherein a bishop would ask directly or indirectly as to whether they masturbated... Well, you look 'em in the eye & you tell 'em a lie. And then you feel *really* bad about yourself and any doubts you have about the Church and its claims--they are obviously your own fault, manifestations of your own deceit and secret unworthiness. The problem isn't the Church--the problem is YOU. I was there. Any such males might be inclined to agree--more truth than poetry in the above. It's about control. It's all about control. --Erik
Wanderer7 Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 23 minutes ago, Five Solas said: That is a hard statement. But I suspect many LDS males who endured "worthiness interviews"--especially in their teenage years--wherein a bishop would ask directly or indirectly as to whether they masturbated... Well, you look 'em in the eye & you tell 'em a lie. And then you feel *really* bad about yourself and any doubts you have about the Church and its claims--they are obviously your own fault, manifestations of your own deceit and secret unworthiness. The problem isn't the Church--the problem is YOU. I was there. Any such males might be inclined to agree--more truth than poetry in the above. It's about control. It's all about control. --Erik That is an experience that I suspect is more common than anyone realizes. Yet, however traumatizing it may be for a young man, or woman for that matter, in the end we will find that we have either been "controlled" by the commandments or by our own appetites and passions. To argue instead that the church is trying to control its members' sexual habits, or anything else, is blatant and willful speculation with no basis in reality. As one who has had his fair share of struggles with the flesh, I can attest that I am a better and happier man for having been "controlled" by the church (regardless of the guilt and self-loathing I had to endure) than I ever was when I was truly controlled by own my impulses. In the process, I have gained some measure of self control; and if I was wrong all along about the church, that is a prize I wouldn't trade for anything. 1
Five Solas Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, Wanderer7 said: That is an experience that I suspect is more common than anyone realizes. Yet, however traumatizing it may be for a young man, or woman for that matter, in the end we will find that we have either been "controlled" by the commandments or by our own appetites and passions. ... Appreciate you saying that, Wanderer7. But to be clear, I don't think I was ever subject to control "by the commandments"--I merely think I was manipulated by certain men at a vulnerable age. --Erik
Tacenda Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 31 minutes ago, Wanderer7 said: That is an experience that I suspect is more common than anyone realizes. Yet, however traumatizing it may be for a young man, or woman for that matter, in the end we will find that we have either been "controlled" by the commandments or by our own appetites and passions. To argue instead that the church is trying to control its members' sexual habits, or anything else, is blatant and willful speculation with no basis in reality. As one who has had his fair share of struggles with the flesh, I can attest that I am a better and happier man for having been "controlled" by the church (regardless of the guilt and self-loathing I had to endure) than I ever was when I was truly controlled by own my impulses. In the process, I have gained some measure of self control; and if I was wrong all along about the church, that is a prize I wouldn't trade for anything. Oh it can be controlling, it shouldn't be like that. We shouldn't treat the gospel as if it's meaning is the church. It's only one thing, it's Jesus' death on the cross and resurrection. I still hold onto that belief at least, but the thought that the church might be wrong has shook that belief. That's where the fuzzy line of what the gospel is in church can cause many to have faith crisis in the belief of God and Jesus. The LDS church needs to make sure that it's members understand that the Gospel means one thing only. It doesn't take the place of being the church. That delineation is critical! 1
ERMD Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 On 3/9/2016 at 11:53 PM, JulieM said: Well, the law of chastity states to keep sexual relations within a "legally and lawfully" bound marriage, correct? Why doesn't this apply equally to gays who are married? I have read on here that some interpret this to mean "laws of God" (lawfully), but is that doctrine? And what about the "legally" part? Certainly this applies to gays who are married now. Or is there a different Law of Chastity for gays to obey? You left out some important words--"...husband or wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded," is the covenant. And sorry, a man does not qualify as a wife, nor does a woman qualify as a husband.
ALarson Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 1 minute ago, ERMD said: You left out some important words--"...husband or wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded," is the covenant. And sorry, a man does not qualify as a wife, nor does a woman qualify as a husband. Yes, "husband or wife". Gays who enter into a legal and lawful SSM, do have a "husband" or a "wife". No one is claiming that a man has to qualify as a wife or that a woman has to qualify as a husband. 2
JLHPROF Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 19 minutes ago, ERMD said: You left out some important words--"...husband or wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded," is the covenant. And sorry, a man does not qualify as a wife, nor does a woman qualify as a husband. 14 minutes ago, ALarson said: Yes, "husband or wife". Gays who enter into a legal and lawful SSM, do have a "husband" or a "wife". No one is claiming that a man has to qualify as a wife or that a woman has to qualify as a husband. Just another reason the law of chastity covenant should never have been changed or the covenants for men and women combined from separate.
ALarson Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) 16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Just another reason the law of chastity covenant should never have been changed or the covenants for men and women combined from separate. I agree (if it is to be clear). I wonder if they will change the wording again? . Edited March 10, 2016 by ALarson
ERMD Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 30 minutes ago, ALarson said: Yes, "husband or wife". Gays who enter into a legal and lawful SSM, do have a "husband" or a "wife". No one is claiming that a man has to qualify as a wife or that a woman has to qualify as a husband. Take that up with the Lord when you see him. He will disagree.
Jeanne Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 2 hours ago, Five Solas said: That is a hard statement. But I suspect many LDS males who endured "worthiness interviews"--especially in their teenage years--wherein a bishop would ask directly or indirectly as to whether they masturbated... Well, you look 'em in the eye & you tell 'em a lie. And then you feel *really* bad about yourself and any doubts you have about the Church and its claims--they are obviously your own fault, manifestations of your own deceit and secret unworthiness. The problem isn't the Church--the problem is YOU. I was there. Any such males might be inclined to agree--more truth than poetry in the above. It's about control. It's all about control. --Erik This. It is the most damaging thing in the church and needs to be changed..regardless of sex/chastity. The compounded guilt and fear should not be in any gospel. 3
ALarson Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) 7 minutes ago, ERMD said: Take that up with the Lord when you see him. A man in a SSM does not have a husband? A woman in a SSM, does not have a wife? Hmmmm..... It states "husband OR wife". SSMs meet that criteria as shown above. He will disagree You don't know that. I believe God will agree. So, we both have our beliefs. Edited March 10, 2016 by ALarson 3
ERMD Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 10 minutes ago, ALarson said: A man in a SSM does not have a husband? A woman in a SSM, does not have a wife? Hmmmm..... It states "husband OR wife". SSMs meet that criteria as shown above. He will disagree You don't know that. I believe God will agree. So, we both have our beliefs. You are changing the covenant. You tread where I dare not. Good luck with that one.
ALarson Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) 2 minutes ago, ERMD said: You are changing the covenant. You tread where I dare not. Good luck with that one. How am I changing the covenant? The wording of the covenant could apply to SSM too. That's all I'm saying. I know that is not going to happen though, at least for now. Edited March 10, 2016 by ALarson 1
JLHPROF Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 7 minutes ago, ALarson said: How am I changing the covenant? The wording of the covenant could apply to SSM too. That's all I'm saying. I know that is not going to happen though, at least for now. The question here is whether the wording of the covenant is based on policy or whether policy is based on the wording of the covenant. The wording of the covenant changed when the policy of the Church changed. If you believe the covenant was given by God through his prophet Joseph Smith when the endowment was restored then several possibilities present themselves: President Grant received a revelation instructing him to change the wording The wording should never have been changed Policy OR revelation could lead to a future change that more clearly precludes SSM The current wording of the covenant could be interpreted to accept SSM ...and many others God is not the author of confusion - perhaps they should have left it as restored to Joseph Smith. 1
ALarson Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: The question here is whether the wording of the covenant is based on policy or whether policy is based on the wording of the covenant. The wording of the covenant changed when the policy of the Church changed. If you believe the covenant was given by God through his prophet Joseph Smith when the endowment was restored then several possibilities present themselves: President Grant received a revelation instructing him to change the wording The wording should never have been changed Policy OR revelation could lead to a future change that more clearly precludes SSM The current wording of the covenant could be interpreted to accept SSM ...and many others God is not the author of confusion - perhaps they should have left it as restored to Joseph Smith. Interesting and I agree. When you stated above: "The wording of the covenant changed when the policy of the Church changed." You are referring to polygamy, not the new SSM policy, correct?
Popular Post california boy Posted March 10, 2016 Popular Post Posted March 10, 2016 On March 9, 2016 at 9:53 PM, JulieM said: Well, the law of chastity states to keep sexual relations within a "legally and lawfully" bound marriage, correct? Why doesn't this apply equally to gays who are married? I have read on here that some interpret this to mean "laws of God" (lawfully), but is that doctrine? And what about the "legally" part? Certainly this applies to gays who are married now. Or is there a different Law of Chastity for gays to obey? The interesting thing is that polygamy was neither legal or lawful. So either way they were not living the law of chastity. I have to say, the church is in a mess with this one. Their statements on what is chastity has to be bended and twisted to not allow gay marriage to be recognized by the law of the land or the law of God. Are all married couples that are just married civilly living the law of chastity? This is a mess. 7
ksfisher Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: God is not the author of confusion - perhaps they should have left it as restored to Joseph Smith. That would leave us without the possibility of receiving continuing revelation. That's something I believe Joseph Smith would reject.
california boy Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 On March 9, 2016 at 8:34 AM, JLHPROF said: No actually - follow the timeline. March 1841 - Zina marries Henry in civil marriage October 1841 - Zina marries Joseph for time and eternity June 1844 - Joseph dies June 1845 - Zina conceives her last child with Henry Probable late 1845 - Zina admitted to anointed quorum and placed under covenant of chastity (no relations except with priesthood husband) January 1846 - Zina is reendowed in Nauvoo temple and placed under covenant of chastity a second time (no relations except with priesthood husband) February 1846 - Zina is resealed to Joseph for eternity in Nauvoo temple and Brigham for time in a Levirate marriage March 1846 - Zina and Henry have their last child I do not know if Zina and Joseph ever had relations, but I do believe that once she was placed under the covenant of chastity her relations with Henry (her civil husband only) ended. To really understand what appear to be polyandrous marriages, we have to understand how the early saints at this time viewed civil marriage vs priesthood marriage. As long as we apply modern concepts and weight civil marriage and priesthood marriage equally we will never understand how the relationships worked. How could Brigham Young have a civil marriage with Zina when he was already married. Certainly the state would not validate that marriage. It is also interesting that BY and Joseph were married to the same woman at the same time. From this list of marriages and cross marriages, it was pretty wild out in the west. Anything seemed to be ok. They just had to say it was ok. It is just too bad BY didn't marry Joseph. It would certianly be more difficult for BY to give the same talk as Elder Holland today. I think a lot of people would have a hard time keeping a straight face. After all of that can you imagine BY standing up and saying any gay couple that is legally married will be branded apostates, excommunicated from the church and their children not baptized until they are 18 because they are not living the law of chastity?????? 1
Ahab Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Chastity generally refers to a person having sex with only their spouse, waiting until they have a spouse before they have sex. A spouse being someone to whom they are legally and lawfully married. In the Church we carry that a step further and say that chastity refers to a person having sex "within the bounds the Lord has set" which not only includes the general idea commonly associated with chastity but also some gender boundaries, with our Lord's counsel through his mouthpieces in the Church that same gender sex is forbidden and abominable even if 2 of the same sex are legally and lawfully married by some law of the land. So the world has it's own set of rules and laws, which sometimes vary in different locations in the world, and the Lord has his own set of rules and laws, which also sometimes vary in different locations whether in this world or in some other worlds.
JulieM Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, ERMD said: You left out some important words--"...husband or wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded," is the covenant. And sorry, a man does not qualify as a wife, nor does a woman qualify as a husband. No, I didn't leave any words out. Those who are in a legal ssm, do have a husband or a wife. Edit: I see others already beat me to giving this answer!! I agree. Edited March 10, 2016 by JulieM
ERMD Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 1 minute ago, JulieM said: No, I didn't leave any words out. Those who are in a legal ssm marriage, do have a husband or a wife. Priceless. 1
JulieM Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 11 minutes ago, ksfisher said: That would leave us without the possibility of receiving continuing revelation. That's something I believe Joseph Smith would reject. Which is exactly why many hope and believe there will be "continuing revelation" and change for policies about SSM.
JulieM Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, ERMD said: Priceless. Why thank you! What I stated was true. (I'm not sure where you thought any words were left out of my original post?) 2
Recommended Posts